cloning essay arguments

• IELTS Scores
• Life Skills Test
• Find a Test Centre
• Alternatives to IELTS
• General Training
• Academic Word List
• Topic Vocabulary
• Collocation
• Phrasal Verbs
• Writing eBooks
• Reading eBook
• All eBooks & Courses
• Sample Essays
• Human Cloning Essay

IELTS Human Cloning Essay

This is a model answer for a  human cloning  essay.

If you look at the task, the wording is slightly different from the common  'do you agree or disagree'  essay.

However, it is essentially asking the same thing.

As people live longer and longer, the idea of cloning human beings in order to provide spare parts is becoming a reality. The idea horrifies most people, yet it is no longer mere science fiction.

To what extent do you agree with such a procedure?

Have you any reservations?

Understanding the Question and Task

You are asked if you agree with human cloning to use their body parts (in other words, what are the benefits), and what reservations (concerns) you have (in other words, what are the disadvantages).

So the best way to answer this human cloning essay is probably to look at both sides of the issue as has been done in the model answer.

As always, you must read the question carefully to make sure you answer it fully and do not go off topic.

You are specifically being asked to discuss the issue of creating human clones to then use their body parts. If you write about other issues to do with human cloning, you may go off topic.

Model Human Cloning Essay

You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.

Write about the following topic:

Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own experience or knowledge.

Write at least 250 words.

Model Answer for Human Cloning Essay

The cloning of animals has been occurring for a number of years now, and this has now opened up the possibility of cloning humans too. Although there are clear benefits to humankind of cloning to provide spare body parts, I believe it raises a number of worrying ethical issues.

Due to breakthroughs in medical science and improved diets, people are living much longer than in the past. This, though, has brought with it problems. As people age, their organs can fail so they need replacing. If humans were cloned, their organs could then be used to replace those of sick people. It is currently the case that there are often not enough organ donors around to fulfil this need, so cloning humans would overcome the issue as there would then be a ready supply.

However, for good reasons, many people view this as a worrying development. Firstly, there are religious arguments against it. It would involve creating other human beings and then eventually killing them in order to use their organs, which it could be argued is murder. This is obviously a sin according to religious texts. Also, dilemmas would arise over what rights these people have, as surely they would be humans just like the rest of us. Furthermore, if we have the ability to clone humans, it has to be questioned where this cloning will end. Is it then acceptable for people to start cloning relatives or family members who have died?

To conclude, I do not agree with this procedure due to the ethical issues and dilemmas it would create. Cloning animals has been a positive development, but this is where it should end.

(276 words)

The essay is well-organized, with a clear introducion which introduces the topic:

• The cloning of animals has been occurring for a number of years now, and this has now opened up the possibility of cloning humans too.

And it has a thesis statement that makes it clear exactly how the human cloning essay will be structured and what the candidate's opinion is:

• Although there are clear benefits to humankind of cloning to provide spare body parts, I believe it raises a number of worrying ethical issues.

The first body paragraph discusses the advantages of cloning humans, and then the second body paragraph looks at the problems associated with this. The change of direction to look at the other side is clearly marked with a transition word ("however") and a topic sentence:

• However, for good reasons, many people view this as a worrying development.

Other transition words are used effectively to guide the reader through the ideas in the human cloning essay: Firstly,.. Also,... Furthermore,...

The candidate demonstrates that they can use a mix of complex structures. For example:

• Due to breakthroughs in medical science and improved diets, people are living much longer than in the past.
• It would involve creating another human and then eventually killing it in order to use its organs, which it could be argued is murder.
• ...if we have the ability to clone humans, it has to be questioned where this cloning will end.

<<< Back

Next >>>

More Agree / Disagree Essays:

Sample IELTS Writing: Is spending on the Arts a waste of money?

Sample IELTS Writing: A common topic in IELTS is whether you think it is a good idea for government money to be spent on the arts. i.e. the visual arts, literary and the performing arts, or whether it should be spent elsewhere, usually on other public services.

IELTS Sample Essay: Is alternative medicine ineffective & dangerous?

IELTS sample essay about alternative and conventional medicine - this shows you how to present a well-balanced argument. When you are asked whether you agree (or disagree), you can look at both sides of the argument if you want.

Airline Tax Essay: Would taxing air travel reduce pollution?

Airline Tax Essay for IELTS. Practice an agree and disagree essay on the topic of taxing airlines to reduce low-cost air traffic. You are asked to decide if you agree or disagree with taxing airlines in order to reduce the problems caused.

IELTS Internet Essay: Is the internet damaging social interaction?

Internet Essay for IELTS on the topic of the Internet and social interaction. Included is a model answer. The IELTS test usually focuses on topical issues. You have to discuss if you think that the Internet is damaging social interaction.

Return of Historical Objects and Artefacts Essay

This essay discusses the topic of returning historical objects and artefacts to their country of origin. It's an agree/disagree type IELTS question.

Examinations Essay: Formal Examinations or Continual Assessment?

Examinations Essay: This IELTS model essay deals with the issue of whether it is better to have formal examinations to assess student’s performance or continual assessment during term time such as course work and projects.

Employing Older People Essay: Is the modern workplace suitable?

Employing Older People Essay. Examine model essays for IELTS Task 2 to improve your score. This essay tackles the issue of whether it it better for employers to hire younger staff rather than those who are older.

Free University Education Essay: Should it be paid for or free?

Free university education Model IELTS essay. Learn how to write high-scoring IELTS essays. The issue of free university education is an essay topic that comes up in the IELTS test. This essay therefore provides you with some of the key arguments about this topic.

Paying Taxes Essay: Should people keep all the money they earn?

Paying Taxes Essay: Read model essays to help you improve your IELTS Writing Score for Task 2. In this essay you have to decide whether you agree or disagree with the opinion that everyone should be able to keep their money rather than paying money to the government.

Dying Languages Essay: Is a world with fewer languages a good thing?

Dying languages essays have appeared in IELTS on several occasions, an issue related to the spread of globalisation. Check out a sample question and model answer.

Multinational Organisations and Culture Essay

Multinational Organisations and Culture Essay: Improve you score for IELTS Essay writing by studying model essays. This Essay is about the extent to which working for a multinational organisation help you to understand other cultures.

Internet vs Newspaper Essay: Which will be the best source of news?

A recent topic to write about in the IELTS exam was an Internet vs Newspaper Essay. The question was: Although more and more people read news on the internet, newspapers will remain the most important source of news. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Truthfulness in Relationships Essay: How important is it?

This truthfulness in relationships essay for IELTS is an agree / disagree type essay. You need to decide if it's the most important factor.

IELTS Vegetarianism Essay: Should we all be vegetarian to be healthy?

Vegetarianism Essay for IELTS: In this vegetarianism essay, the candidate disagrees with the statement, and is thus arguing that everyone does not need to be a vegetarian.

Technology Development Essay: Are earlier developments the best?

This technology development essay shows you a complex IELTS essay question that is easily misunderstood. There are tips on how to approach IELTS essay questions

Scientific Research Essay: Who should be responsible for its funding?

Scientific research essay model answer for Task 2 of the test. For this essay, you need to discuss whether the funding and controlling of scientific research should be the responsibility of the government or private organizations.

Extinction of Animals Essay: Should we prevent this from happening?

In this extinction of animals essay for IELTS you have to decide whether you think humans should do what they can to prevent the extinction of animal species.

Role of Schools Essay: How should schools help children develop?

This role of schools essay for IELTS is an agree disagree type essay where you have to discuss how schools should help children to develop.

Ban Smoking in Public Places Essay: Should the government ban it?

Ban smoking in public places essay: The sample answer shows you how you can present the opposing argument first, that is not your opinion, and then present your opinion in the following paragraph.

Essay for IELTS: Are some advertising methods unethical?

This is an agree / disagree type question. Your options are: 1. Agree 100% 2. Disagree 100% 3. Partly agree. In the answer below, the writer agrees 100% with the opinion. There is an analysis of the answer.

Any comments or questions about this page or about IELTS? Post them here. Your email will not be published or shared.

Before you go...

Check out the ielts buddy band 7+ ebooks & courses.

Would you prefer to share this page with others by linking to it?

• Click on the HTML link code below.
• Copy and paste it, adding a note of your own, into your blog, a Web page, forums, a blog comment, your Facebook account, or anywhere that someone would find this page valuable.

Band 7+ eBooks

"I think these eBooks are FANTASTIC!!! I know that's not academic language, but it's the truth!"

Linda, from Italy, Scored Band 7.5

IELTS Modules:

Other resources:.

• All Lessons
• Band Score Calculator
• Writing Feedback
• Speaking Feedback
• Teacher Resources
• Free Downloads
• Recent Essay Exam Questions
• Books for IELTS Prep
• Useful Links

Recent Articles

Decreasing House Sizes Essay

Apr 06, 24 10:22 AM

Latest IELTS Writing Topics - Recent Exam Questions

Apr 04, 24 02:36 AM

IELTS Essay: English as a Global Language

Apr 03, 24 03:49 PM

Important pages

IELTS Writing IELTS Speaking IELTS Listening   IELTS Reading All Lessons Vocabulary Academic Task 1 Academic Task 2 Practice Tests

Connect with us

Copyright © 2022- IELTSbuddy All Rights Reserved

IELTS is a registered trademark of University of Cambridge, the British Council, and IDP Education Australia. This site and its owners are not affiliated, approved or endorsed by the University of Cambridge ESOL, the British Council, and IDP Education Australia.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
• v.112(29); 2015 Jul 21

Cloning humans? Biological, ethical, and social considerations

Author contributions: F.J.A. wrote the paper.

There are, in mankind, two kinds of heredity: biological and cultural. Cultural inheritance makes possible for humans what no other organism can accomplish: the cumulative transmission of experience from generation to generation. In turn, cultural inheritance leads to cultural evolution, the prevailing mode of human adaptation. For the last few millennia, humans have been adapting the environments to their genes more often than their genes to the environments. Nevertheless, natural selection persists in modern humans, both as differential mortality and as differential fertility, although its intensity may decrease in the future. More than 2,000 human diseases and abnormalities have a genetic causation. Health care and the increasing feasibility of genetic therapy will, although slowly, augment the future incidence of hereditary ailments. Germ-line gene therapy could halt this increase, but at present, it is not technically feasible. The proposal to enhance the human genetic endowment by genetic cloning of eminent individuals is not warranted. Genomes can be cloned; individuals cannot. In the future, therapeutic cloning will bring enhanced possibilities for organ transplantation, nerve cells and tissue healing, and other health benefits.

Chimpanzees are the closest relatives of Homo sapiens , our species. There is a precise correspondence bone by bone between the skeletons of a chimpanzee and a human. Humans bear young like apes and other mammals. Humans have organs and limbs similar to birds, reptiles, and amphibians; these similarities reflect the common evolutionary origin of vertebrates. However, it does not take much reflection to notice the distinct uniqueness of our species. Conspicuous anatomical differences between humans and apes include bipedal gait and an enlarged brain. Much more conspicuous than the anatomical differences are the distinct behaviors and institutions. Humans have symbolic language, elaborate social and political institutions, codes of law, literature and art, ethics, and religion; humans build roads and cities, travel by motorcars, ships, and airplanes, and communicate by means of telephones, computers, and televisions.

Human Origins

The hominin lineage diverged from the chimpanzee lineage 6–7 Ma, and it evolved exclusively in the African continent until the emergence of Homo erectus , somewhat before 1.8 Ma. Shortly after its emergence in tropical or subtropical Africa, H. erectus spread to other continents. Fossil remains of H. erectus (sensu lato) are known from Africa, Indonesia (Java), China, the Middle East, and Europe. H. erectus fossils from Java have been dated at 1.81 ± 0.04 and 1.66 ± 0.04 Ma and from Georgia at 1.6–1.8 Ma ( 1 ). Anatomically distinctive H. erectus fossils have been found in Spain, deposited before 780,000 y ago, the oldest in southern Europe ( 2 ).

The transition from H. erectus to H. sapiens occurred around 400,000 y ago, although this date is not well determined owing to uncertainty as to whether some fossils are erectus or archaic forms of sapiens. H. erectus persisted for some time in Asia, until 250,000 y ago in China and perhaps until 100,000 ago in Java, and thus was contemporary with early members of its descendant species, H. sapiens. Fossil remains of Neandertal hominids ( Homo neanderthalensis ), with brains as large as those of H. sapiens , appeared in Europe earlier than 200,000 y ago and persisted until 30,000 or 40,000 y ago ( 3 , 4 ).

There is controversy about the origin of modern humans. Some anthropologists argue that the transition from H. erectus to archaic H. sapiens and later to anatomically modern humans occurred consonantly in various parts of the Old World. Proponents of this “multiregional model” emphasize fossil evidence showing regional continuity in the transition from H. erectus to archaic and then modern H. sapiens . Most anthropologists argue instead that modern humans first arose in Africa somewhat before 100,000 y ago and from there spread throughout the world, eventually replacing elsewhere the preexisting populations of H. erectus , H. neanderthalensis, and archaic H. sapiens . The African origin of modern humans is supported by a wealth of recent genetic evidence and is therefore favored by many evolutionists ( 2 , 4 ).

We know about these matters in three ways: by comparing living primates, including humans, with each other; by discovery and investigation of fossil remains of primates that lived in the past; and by comparing their DNA, proteins, and other molecules. DNA and proteins give us the best information about how closely related we are to each of the primates and those to each other. However, to know how the human lineage changed in anatomy and behavior over time as our ancestors became more and more human-like, we have to study fossils and the tools they used and made, as well as other remnants of their activities ( 2 , 5 ).

Humans live in groups that are socially organized and so do other primates. However, other primate societies do not approach the complexity of human social organization. A distinctive human social trait is culture, which may be understood as the set of nonstrictly biological human activities and creations. Culture includes social and political institutions, ways of doing things, religious and ethical traditions, language, common sense and scientific knowledge, art and literature, technology, and in general all of the creations of the human mind. The advent of culture has brought with it cultural evolution, a superorganic mode of evolution superimposed on the organic mode, that has become the dominant mode of human evolution. Cultural evolution has come about because of cultural inheritance, a distinctively human mode of achieving adaptation to the environment ( 2 , 6 , 7 ).

There are in mankind two kinds of heredity: the biological and the cultural. Biological inheritance in humans is very much like that in any other sexually reproducing organism; it is based on the transmission of genetic information encoded in DNA from one generation to the next by means of the sex cells. Cultural inheritance, on the other hand, is based on transmission of information by a teaching-learning process, which is in principle independent of biological parentage. Culture is transmitted by instruction and learning, by example and imitation, through books, newspapers, radio, television, and motion pictures, through works of art, and through any other means of communication. Culture is acquired by every person from parents, relatives, and neighbors and from the whole human environment. Acquired cultural traits may be beneficial but also toxic; for example, racial prejudice or religious bigotry.

Biological heredity is Mendelian or vertical; it is transmitted from parents to their children, and only inherited traits can be transmitted to the progeny. (New mutations are insignificant in the present context.) Cultural heredity is Lamarckian: acquired characters can be transmitted to the progeny. However, cultural heredity goes beyond Lamarckian heredity, because it is horizontal and oblique and not only vertical. Traits can be acquired from and transmitted to other members of the same generation, whether or not they are relatives, and also from and to all other individuals with whom a person has contact, whether they are from the same or from any previous or ensuing generation.

Cultural inheritance makes possible for people what no other organism can accomplish—the cumulative transmission of experience from generation to generation. Animals can learn from experience, but they do not transmit their experiences or their discoveries (at least not to any large extent) to the following generations. Animals have individual memory, but they do not have a “social memory.” Humans, on the other hand, have developed a culture because they can transmit cumulatively their experiences from generation to generation.

Cultural inheritance makes possible cultural evolution, a new mode of adaptation to the environment that is not available to nonhuman organisms. Organisms in general adapt to the environment by means of natural selection, by changing over generations their genetic constitution to suit the demands of the environment. However, humans, and humans alone, can also adapt by changing the environment to suit the needs of their genes. (Animals build nests and modify their environment also in other ways, but the manipulation of the environment by any nonhuman species is trivial compared with mankind's manipulation.) For the last few millennia, humans have been adapting the environments to their genes more often than their genes to the environments.

To extend its geographical habitat, or to survive in a changing environment, a population of organisms must become adapted, through slow accumulation of genetic variants sorted out by natural selection, to the new climatic conditions, different sources of food, different competitors, and so on. The discovery of fire and the use of shelter and clothing allowed humans to spread from the warm tropical and subtropical regions of the Old World to the whole Earth, except for the frozen wastes of Antarctica, without the anatomical development of fur or hair. Humans did not wait for genetic mutants promoting wing development; they have conquered the air in a somewhat more efficient and versatile way by building flying machines. People travel the rivers and the seas without gills or fins. The exploration of outer space has started without waiting for mutations providing humans with the ability to breathe with low oxygen pressures or to function in the absence of gravity; astronauts carry their own oxygen and specially equipped pressure suits. From their obscure beginnings in Africa, humans have become the most widespread and abundant species of mammal on earth. It was the appearance of culture as a superorganic form of adaptation that made mankind the most successful animal species.

Cultural adaptation has prevailed in mankind over biological adaptation because it is a more effective mode of adaptation; it is more rapid and it can be directed. A favorable genetic mutation newly arisen in an individual can be transmitted to a sizeable part of the human species only through innumerable generations. However, a new scientific discovery or technical achievement can be transmitted to the whole of mankind, potentially at least, in less than one generation. Witness the rapid spread of personal computers, iPhones, and the Internet. Moreover, whenever a need arises, culture can directly pursue the appropriate changes to meet the challenge. On the contrary, biological adaptation depends on the accidental availability of a favorable mutation, or of a combination of several mutations, at the time and place where the need arises ( 2 , 6 , 7 ).

Biological Evolution in Modern Humans

There is no scientific basis to the claim sometimes made that the biological evolution of mankind has stopped, or nearly so, at least in technologically advanced countries. It is asserted that the progress of medicine, hygiene, and nutrition have largely eliminated death before middle age; that is, most people live beyond reproductive age, after which death is inconsequential for natural selection. That mankind continues to evolve biologically can be shown because the necessary and sufficient conditions for biological evolution persist. These conditions are genetic variability and differential reproduction. There is a wealth of genetic variation in mankind. With the trivial exception of identical twins, developed from a single fertilized egg, no two people who live now, lived in the past, or will live in the future, are likely to be genetically identical. Much of this variation is relevant to natural selection ( 5 , 8 , 9 ).

Natural selection is simply differential reproduction of alternative genetic variants. Natural selection will occur in mankind if the carriers of some genotypes are likely to leave more descendants than the carriers of other genotypes. Natural selection consists of two main components: differential mortality and differential fertility; both persist in modern mankind, although the intensity of selection due to postnatal mortality has been somewhat attenuated.

Death may occur between conception and birth (prenatal) or after birth (postnatal). The proportion of prenatal deaths is not well known. Death during the early weeks of embryonic development may go totally undetected. However, it is known that no less than 20% of all ascertained human conceptions end in spontaneous abortion during the first 2 mo of pregnancy. Such deaths are often due to deleterious genetic constitutions, and thus they have a selective effect in the population. The intensity of this form of selection has not changed substantially in modern mankind, although it has been slightly reduced with respect to a few genes such as those involved in Rh blood group incompatibility.

Postnatal mortality has been considerably reduced in recent times in technologically advanced countries. For example, in the United States, somewhat less than 50% of those born in 1840 survived to age 45, whereas the average life expectancy for people born in the United States in 1960 is 78 y ( Table 1 ) ( 8 , 10 ). In some regions of the world, postnatal mortality remains quite high, although there it has also generally decreased in recent decades. Mortality before the end of reproductive age, particularly where it has been considerably reduced, is largely associated with genetic defects, and thus it has a favorable selective effect in human populations. Several thousand genetic variants are known that cause diseases and malformations in humans; such variants are kept at low frequencies due to natural selection.

Percent of Americans born between 1840 and 1960 surviving to ages 15 and 45

Reprinted from ref. 8 .

It might seem at first that selection due to differential fertility has been considerably reduced in industrial countries as a consequence of the reduction in the average number of children per family that has taken place. However, this is not so. The intensity of fertility selection depends not on the mean number of children per family, but on the variance in the number of children per family. It is clear why this should be so. Assume that all people of reproductive age marry and that all have exactly the same number of children. In this case, there would not be fertility selection whether couples all had very few or all had very many children. Assume, on the other hand, that the mean number of children per family is low, but some families have no children at all or very few, whereas others have many. In this case, there would be considerable opportunity for selection—the genotypes of parents producing many children would increase in frequency at the expense of those having few or none. Studies of human populations have shown that the opportunity for natural selection often increases as the mean number of children decreases. An extensive study published years ago showed that the index of opportunity for selection due to fertility was four times larger among United States women born in the 20th century, with an average of less than three children per woman, than among women in the Gold Coast of Africa or in rural Quebec, who had three times or more children on average ( Table 2 ) ( 8 , 11 ). There is no evidence that natural selection due to fertility has decreased in modern human populations.

Mean number of children per family and index of opportunity for fertility selection I f , in various human populations

I f is calculated as the variance divided by the square of the mean number of children. The opportunity for selection usually increases as the mean number of children decreases. Reprinted from ref. 8 .

Natural selection may decrease in intensity in the future, but it will not disappear altogether. As long as there is genetic variation and the carriers of some genotypes are more likely to reproduce than others, natural selection will continue operating in human populations. Cultural changes, such as the development of agriculture, migration from the country to the cities, environmental pollution, and many others, create new selective pressures. The pressures of city life are partly responsible for the high incidence of mental disorders in certain human societies. The point to bear in mind is that human environments are changing faster than ever owing precisely to the accelerating rate of cultural change, and environmental changes create new selective pressures, thus fueling biological evolution.

Natural selection is the process of differential reproduction of alternative genetic variants. In terms of single genes, variation occurs when two or more alleles are present in the population at a given gene locus. How much genetic variation exists in the current human population? The answer is “quite a lot,” as will be presently shown, but natural selection will take place only if the alleles of a particular gene have different effects on fitness; that is, if alternative alleles differentially impact the probability of survival and reproduction.

The two genomes that we inherit from each parent are estimated to differ at about one or two nucleotides per thousand. The human genome consists of somewhat more than 3 billion nucleotides ( 12 ). Thus, about 3–6 million nucleotides are different between the two genomes of each human individual, which is a lot of genetic polymorphism. Moreover, the process of mutation introduces new variation in any population every generation. The rate of mutation in the human genome is estimated to be about 10 −8 , which is one nucleotide mutation for every hundred million nucleotides, or about 30 new mutations per genome per generation. Thus, every human has about 60 new mutations (30 in each genome) that were not present in the parents. If we consider the total human population, that is 60 mutations per person multiplied by 7 billion people, which is about 420 billion new mutations per generation that are added to the preexisting 3–6 million polymorphic nucleotides per individual.

That is a lot of mutations, even if many are redundant. Moreover, we must remember that the polymorphisms that count for natural selection are those that impact the probability of survival and reproduction of their carriers. Otherwise, the variant nucleotides may increase or decrease in frequency by chance, a process that evolutionists call “genetic drift,” but will not be impacted by natural selection ( 2 , 12 , 13 ).

Genetic Disorders

More than 2,000 human diseases and abnormalities that have a genetic causation have been identified in the human population. Genetic disorders may be dominant, recessive, multifactorial, or chromosomal. Dominant disorders are caused by the presence of a single copy of the defective allele, so that the disorder is expressed in heterozygous individuals: those having one normal and one defective allele. In recessive disorders, the defective allele must be present in both alleles, that is, it is inherited from each parent to be expressed. Multifactorial disorders are caused by interaction among several gene loci; chromosomal disorders are due to the presence or absence of a full chromosome or a fragment of a chromosome ( 14 , 15 ).

Examples of dominant disorders are some forms of retinoblastoma and other kinds of blindness, achondroplastic dwarfism, and Marfan syndrome (which is thought to have affected President Lincoln). Examples of recessive disorders are cystic fibrosis, Tay-Sachs disease, and sickle cell anemia (caused by an allele that in heterozygous condition protects against malaria). Examples of multifactorial diseases are spina bifida and cleft palate. Among the most common chromosomal disorders are Down syndrome, caused by the presence of an extra chromosome 21, and various kinds due to the absence of one sex chromosome or the presence of an extra one, beyond the normal condition of XX for women and XY for men. Examples are Turner’s syndrome (XO) and Klinefelter’s syndrome (XXY) ( 16 ).

The incidence of genetic disorders expressed in the living human population is estimated to be no less than 2.56%, impacting about 180 million people. Natural selection reduces the incidence of the genes causing disease, more effectively in the case of dominant disorders, where all carriers of the gene will express the disease, than for recessive disorders, which are expressed only in homozygous individuals. Consider, for example, phenylketonuria (PKU), a lethal disease if untreated, due to homozygosis for a recessive gene, which has an incidence of 1 in 10,000 newborns or 0.01%. PKU is due to an inability to metabolize the amino acid phenylalanine with devastating mental and physical effects. A very elaborate diet free of phenylalanine allows the patient to survive and reproduce if started early in life. The frequency of the PKU allele is about 1%, so that in heterozygous conditions it is present in more than 100 million people, but only the 0.01% of people who are homozygous express the disease and are subject to natural selection. The reduction of genetic disorders due to natural selection is balanced with their increase due to the incidence of new mutations.

Let’s consider another example. Hereditary retinoblastoma is a disease attributed to a dominant mutation of the gene coding for the retinoblastoma protein, RB1, but it is actually due to a deletion in chromosome 13. The unfortunate child with this condition develops a tumorous growth during infancy that, without treatment, starts in one eye and often extends to the other eye and then to the brain, causing death before puberty. Surgical treatment now makes it possible to save the life of the child if the condition is detected sufficiently early, although often one or both eyes may be lost. The treated person can live a more or less normal life, marry, and procreate. However, because the genetic determination is dominant (a gene deletion), one half of the progeny will, on the average, be born with the same genetic condition and will have to be treated. Before modern medicine, every mutation for retinoblastoma arising in the human population was eliminated from the population in the same generation owing to the death of its carrier. With surgical treatment, the mutant condition can be preserved, and new mutations arising each generation are added to those arisen in the past (refs. 17 and 18 ; www.abedia.com/wiley/index.html ).

The proportion of individuals affected by any one serious hereditary infirmity is relatively small, but there are more than 2,000 known serious physical infirmities determined by genes. When all these hereditary ailments are considered together, the proportion of persons born who will suffer from a serious handicap during their lifetimes owing to their heredity is more than 2% of the total population, as pointed out above (refs. 15 , 16 , and 19 ; www.abedia.com/wiley/index.html ).

The problem becomes more serious when mental defects are taken into consideration. More than 2% of the population is affected by schizophrenia or a related condition known as schizoid disease, ailments that may be in some cases determined by a single mutant gene. Another 3% or so of the population suffer from mild mental retardation (IQ less than 70). More than 100 million people in the world suffer from mental impairments due in good part to the genetic endowment they inherited from their parents.

Natural selection also acts on a multitude of genes that do not cause disease. Genes impact skin pigmentation, hair color and configuration, height, muscle strength and body shape, and many other anatomical polymorphisms that are apparent, as well as many that are not externally obvious, such as variations in the blood groups, in the immune system, and in the heart, liver, kidney, pancreas, and other organs. It is not always known how natural selection impacts these traits, but surely it does and does it differently in different parts of the world or at different times, as a consequence of the development of new vaccines, drugs, and medical treatments, and also as a consequence of changes in lifestyle, such as the reduction of the number of smokers or the increase in the rate of obesity in a particular country.

Genetic Therapy

Where is human evolution going? Biological evolution is directed by natural selection, which is not a benevolent force guiding evolution toward sure success. Natural selection brings about genetic changes that often appear purposeful because they are dictated by the requirements of the environment. The end result may, nevertheless, be extinction—more than 99.9% of all species that ever existed have become extinct. Natural selection has no purpose; humans alone have purposes and they alone may introduce them into their evolution. No species before mankind could select its evolutionary destiny; mankind possesses techniques to do so, and more powerful techniques for directed genetic change are becoming available. Because we are self-aware, we cannot refrain from asking what lies ahead, and because we are ethical beings, we must choose between alternative courses of action, some of which may appear as good and others as bad.

The argument has been advanced that the biological endowment of mankind is rapidly deteriorating owing precisely to the improving conditions of life and to the increasing power of modern medicine. The detailed arguments that support this contention involve some mathematical exercises, but their essence can be simply presented. Genetic changes (i.e., point or chromosome mutations) arise spontaneously in humans and in other living species. The great majority of newly arising mutations are either neutral or harmful to their carriers; only a very small fraction are likely to be beneficial. In a human population under the so-called “natural” conditions, that is, without the intervention of modern medicine and technology, the newly arising harmful mutations are eliminated from the population more or less rapidly depending on how harmful they are. The more harmful the effect of a mutation, the more rapidly it will be eliminated from the population by the process of natural selection. However, owing to medical intervention and, more recently, because of the possibility of genetic therapy, the elimination of some harmful mutations from the population is no longer taking place as rapidly and effectively as it did in the past.

Molecular biology has introduced in modern medicine a new way to cure diseases, namely genetic therapy, direct intervention in the genetic makeup of an individual. Gene therapy can be somatic or germ line. Germ-line genetic therapy would seek to correct a genetic defect, not only in the organs or tissues impacted, but also in the germ line, so that the person treated would not transmit the genetic impairment to the descendants. As of now, no interventions of germ-line therapy are seriously sought by scientists, physicians, or pharmaceutical companies.

The possibility of gene therapy was first anticipated in 1972 ( 20 ). The possible objectives are to correct the DNA of a defective gene or to insert a new gene that would allow the proper function of the gene or DNA to take place. In the case of a harmful gene, the objective would be to disrupt the gene that is not functioning properly.

The eminent biologist E. O. Wilson (2014) has stated, many would think somewhat hyperbolically, that the issue of how much to use genetic engineering to direct our own evolution, is “the greatest moral dilemma since God stayed the hand of Abraham” ( 21 ).

The first successful interventions of gene therapy concerned patients suffering from severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID), first performed in a 4-y-old girl at the National Institutes of Health in 1990 ( 22 ), soon followed by successful trials in other countries ( 23 ). Treatments were halted temporarily from 2000 to 2002 in Paris, when 2 of about 12 treated children developed a leukemia-like condition, which was indeed attributed to the gene therapy treatment. Since 2004, successful clinical trials for SCID have been performed in the United States, United Kingdom, France, Italy, and Germany ( 24 , 25 ).

Gene therapy treatments are still considered experimental. Successful clinical trials have been performed in patients suffering from adrenoleukodystrophy, Parkinson’s disease, chronic lymphocytic leukemia, acute lymphocytic leukemia, multiple myeloma, and hemophilia ( 26 , 27 ). Initially, the prevailing gene therapy methods involved recombinant viruses, but nonviral methods (transfection molecules) have become increasingly successful. Since 2013, US pharmaceutical companies have invested more than $600 million in gene therapy ( 28 ). However, in addition to the huge economic costs, technical hurdles remain. Frequent negative effects include immune response against an extraneous object introduced into human tissues, leukemia, tumors, and other disorders provoked by vector viruses. Moreover, the genetic therapy corrections are often short lived, which calls for multiple rounds of treatment, thereby increasing costs and other handicaps. In addition, many of the most common genetic disorders are multifactorial and are thus beyond current gene therapy treatment. Examples are diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease, arthritis, and Alzheimer’s disease, which at the present state of knowledge and technology are not suitable for gene therapy.

If a genetic defect is corrected in the affected cells, tissues, or organs, but not in the germ line, the ova or sperm produced by the individual will transmit the defect to the progeny. A deleterious gene that might have been reduced in frequency or eliminated from the population, owing to the death or reduced fertility of the carrier, will now persist in the population and be added to its load of hereditary diseases. A consequence of genetic therapy is that the more hereditary diseases and defects are cured today, the more of them will be there to be cured in the succeeding generations. This consequence follows not only from gene therapy but also from typical medical treatments.

The Nobel laureate geneticist H. J. Muller eloquently voiced this concern about the cure, whether through genetic therapy or traditional medical treatment, of genetic ailments. “The more sick people we now cure and allow them to reproduce, the more there will be to cure in the future.” The fate toward which mankind is drifting is painted by Muller in somber colors. “The amount of genetically caused impairment suffered by the average individual…must by that time have grown….[P]eople’s time and energy…would be devoted chiefly to the effort to live carefully, to spare and to prop up their own feebleness, to soothe their inner disharmonies and, in general, to doctor themselves as effectively as possible. For everyone would be an invalid, with his own special familial twists….” (ref. 29 ; Fig. 1 ).

The bionic human, on the cover of Science : an image that could represent how H. J. Muller anticipates the human condition, a few centuries hence, showing the accumulation of physical handicaps as a consequence of the medical cure of hereditary diseases. Image by Cameron Slayden and Nathalie Cary; reprinted with permission from AAAS.

It must be pointed out that the population genetic consequences of curing hereditary diseases are not as immediate (“a few centuries hence”) as Muller anticipates. Consider, as a first example, we look at the recessive hereditary condition of PKU. The estimated frequency of the gene is q = 0.01; the expected number of humans born with PKU is q 2 = 0.0001, 1 for every 10,000 births. If all PKU individuals are cured all over the world and all of them leave as many descendants, on the average, as other humans, the frequency of the PKU allele will double after 1/q = 1/0.01 = 100 generations. If we assume 25 y per generation, we conclude that after 2,500 y, the frequency of the PKU allele will be q = 0.02, and q 2 = 0.0004, so that 4 of every 10,000 persons, rather than only 1, will be born with PKU.

In the case of dominant lethal diseases, the incidence is determined by the mutation frequency of the normal to the disease allele, which is typically of the order of m = 10 −6 –10 −8 , or between one in a million and one in one hundred million. Assuming the highest rate of m = 10 −6 , the incidence of the disease after 100 generations will become 1 for every 10,000 births. It would therefore seem likely that much earlier than 2,500 y, humans are likely to find ways of correcting hereditary ailments in the germ line, thereby stopping their transmission.

It must be pointed out that, although the proportion of individuals affected by any one serious hereditary infirmity is relatively small, there are many such hereditary ailments, which on the aggregate make the problem very serious. The problem becomes more serious when mental defects are taken into consideration. As pointed out above, more than 100 million people in the world suffer from mental impairments due in good part to the genetic endowment they inherited from their parents.

Human cloning may refer to “therapeutic cloning,” particularly the cloning of embryonic cells to obtain organs for transplantation or for treating injured nerve cells and other health purposes. Human cloning more typically refers to “reproductive cloning,” the use of somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) to obtain eggs that could develop into adult individuals.

Human cloning has occasionally been suggested as a way to improve the genetic endowment of mankind, by cloning individuals of great achievement, for example, in sports, music, the arts, science, literature, politics, and the like, or of acknowledged virtue. These suggestions seemingly have never been taken seriously. However, some individuals have expressed a wish, however unrealistic, to be cloned, and some physicians have on occasion advertised that they were ready to carry out the cloning ( 30 ). The obstacles and drawbacks are many and insuperable, at least at the present state of knowledge.

Biologists use the term cloning with variable meanings, although all uses imply obtaining copies more or less precise of a biological entity. Three common uses refer to cloning genes, cloning cells, and cloning individuals. Cloning an individual, particularly in the case of a multicellular organism, such as a plant or an animal, is not strictly possible. The genes of an individual, the genome, can be cloned, but the individual itself cannot be cloned, as it will be made clear below.

Cloning genes or, more generally, cloning DNA segments is routinely done in many genetics and pharmaceutical laboratories throughout the world ( 12 , 31 ). Technologies for cloning cells in the laboratory are seven decades old and are used for reproducing a particular type of cell, for example a skin or a liver cell, in order to investigate its characteristics.

Individual human cloning occurs naturally in the case of identical twins, when two individuals develop from a single fertilized egg. These twins are called identical, precisely because they are genetically identical to each other.

The sheep Dolly, cloned in July 1996, was the first mammal artificially cloned using an adult cell as the source of the genotype. Frogs and other amphibians were obtained by artificial cloning as early as 50 y earlier ( 32 ).

Cloning an animal by SCNT proceeds as follows. First, the genetic information in the egg of a female is removed or neutralized. Somatic (i.e., body) cells are taken from the individual selected to be cloned, and the cell nucleus (where the genetic information is stored) of one cell is transferred with a micropipette into the host oocyte. The egg, so “fertilized,” is stimulated to start embryonic development ( 33 ).

Can a human individual be cloned? The correct answer is, strictly speaking, no. What is cloned are the genes, not the individual; the genotype, not the phenotype. The technical obstacles are immense even for cloning a human’s genotype.

Ian Wilmut, the British scientist who directed the cloning project, succeeded with Dolly only after 270 trials. The rate of success for cloning mammals has notably increased over the years without ever reaching 100%. The animals presently cloned include mice, rats, goats, sheep, cows, pigs, horses, and other mammals. The great majority of pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion ( 34 ). Moreover, as Wilmut noted, in many cases, the death of the fetus occurs close to term, with devastating economic, health, and emotional consequences in the case of humans ( 35 ).

In mammals, in general, the animals produced by cloning suffer from serious health handicaps, among others, gross obesity, early death, distorted limbs, and dysfunctional immune systems and organs, including liver and kidneys, and other mishaps. Even Dolly had to be euthanized early in 2003, after only 6 y of life, because her health was rapidly decaying, including progressive lung disease and arthritis ( 35 , 36 ).

The low rate of cloning success may improve in the future. It may be that the organ and other failures of those that reach birth will be corrected by technical advances. Human cloning would still face ethical objections from a majority of concerned people, as well as opposition from diverse religions. Moreover, there remains the limiting consideration asserted earlier: it might be possible to clone a person’s genes, but the individual cannot be cloned. The character, personality, and the features other than anatomical and physiological that make up the individual are not precisely determined by the genotype.

The Genotype and the Individual

The genetic makeup of an individual is its genotype. The phenotype refers to what the individual is, which includes not only the individual’s external appearance or anatomy, but also its physiology, as well as behavioral predispositions and attributes, encompassing intellectual abilities, moral values, aesthetic preferences, religious values, and, in general, all other behavioral characteristics or features, acquired by experience, imitation, learning, or in any other way throughout the individual’s life, from conception to death. The phenotype results from complex networks of interactions between the genes and the environment.

A person’s environmental influences begin, importantly, in the mother’s womb and continue after birth, through childhood, adolescence, and the whole life. Impacting behavioral experiences are associated with family, friends, schooling, social and political life, readings, aesthetic and religious experiences, and every event in the person’s life, whether conscious or not. The genotype of a person has an unlimited number, virtually infinite, of possibilities to be realized, which has been called the genotype’s “norm of reaction,” only one of which will be the case in a particular individual ( 37 ). If an adult person is cloned, the disparate life circumstances experienced many years later would surely result in a very different individual, even if anatomically the individual would resemble the genome’s donor at a similar age.

An illustration of environmental effects on the phenotype, and of interactions between the genotype and the environment, is shown in Fig. 2 ( 38 ). Three plants of the cinquefoil, Potentilla glandulosa , were collected in California—one on the coast at about 100 ft above sea level (Stanford), the second at about 4,600 ft (Mather), and the third in the Alpine zone of the Sierra Nevada at about 10,000 ft above sea level (Timberline). From each plant, three cuttings were obtained in each of several replicated experiments, which were planted in three experimental gardens at different altitudes, the same gardens from which the plants were collected. The division of one plant ensured that all three cuttings planted at different altitudes had the same genotype; that is, they were genetic clones from one another. ( P. glandulosa , like many other plants, can be reproduced by cuttings, which are genetically identical.)

Interacting effects of the genotype and the environment on the phenotype of the cinquefoil Pontentilla glandulosa . Cuttings of plants collected at different altitudes were planted in three different experimental gardens. Plants in the same row are genetically identical because they have been grown from cuttings of a single plant; plants in the same column are genetically different but have been grown in the same experimental garden. Reprinted with permission from ref. 13 .

Comparison of the plants in any row shows how a given genotype gives rise to different phenotypes in different environments. Genetically identical plants (for example, those in the bottom row) may prosper or not, even die, depending on the environmental conditions. Plants from different altitudes are known to be genetically different. Hence, comparison of the plants in any column shows that in a given environment, different genotypes result in different phenotypes. An important inference derived from this experiment is that there is no single genotype that is best in all environments.

The interaction between the genotype and the environment is similarly significant, or even more so, in the case of animals. In one experiment, two strains of rats were selected over many generations; one strain for brightness at finding their way through a maze and the other for dullness ( Fig. 3 ; ref. 39 ). Selection was done in the bright strain by using the brightest rats of each generation to breed the following generation, and in the dull strain by breeding the dullest rats of every generation. After many generations of selection, the descendant bright rats made only about 120 errors running through the maze, whereas dull rats averaged 165 errors. That is a 40% difference. However, the differences between the strains disappeared when rats of both strains were raised in an unfavorable environment of severe deprivation, where both strains averaged 170 errors. The differences also nearly disappeared when the rats were raised with abundant food and other favorable conditions. In this optimal environment, the dull rats reduced their average number of errors from 165 to 120. As with the cinquefoil plants, we see ( i ) that a given genotype gives rise to different phenotypes in different environments and ( ii ) that the differences in phenotype between two genotypes change from one environment to another—the genotype that is best in one environment may not be best in another.

Results of an experiment with two strains of rats: one selected for brightness and the other for dullness. After many generations of selection, when raised in the same environment in which the selection was practiced (normal), bright rats made about 45 fewer errors than dull rats in the maze used for the tests. However, when the rats were raised in an impoverished (restricted) environment, bright and dull rats made the same number of errors. When raised in an abundant (stimulating) environment, the two strains performed nearly equally well. Reprinted with permission from ref. 13 .

Cloning Humans?

In the second half of the 20th century, as dramatic advances were taking place in genetic knowledge, as well as in the genetic technology often referred to as “genetic engineering,” some utopian proposals were advanced, at least as suggestions that should be explored and considered as possibilities, once the technologies had sufficiently progressed. Some proposals suggested that persons of great intellectual or artistic achievement or of great virtue be cloned. If this was accomplished in large numbers, the genetic constitution of mankind would, it was argued, considerably improve.

Such utopian proposals are grossly misguided. It should be apparent that, as stated above, it is not possible to clone a human individual. Seeking to multiply great benefactors of humankind, such as persons of great intelligence or character, we might obtain the likes of Stalin, Hitler, or Bin Laden. As the Nobel Laureate geneticist George W. Beadle asserted many years ago: “Few of us would have advocated preferential multiplication of Hitler’s genes. Yet who can say that in a different cultural context Hitler might not have been one of the truly great leaders of men, or that Einstein might not have been a political villain” ( 8 ). There is no reason whatsoever to expect that the genomes of individuals with excellent attributes would, when cloned, produce individuals similarly endowed with virtue or intelligence. Identical genomes yield, in different environments, individuals who may be quite different. Environments cannot be reproduced, particularly several decades apart, which would be the case when the genotype of the persons selected because of their eminent achievement might be cloned.

Are there circumstances that would justify cloning a person, because he or she wants it? One might think of a couple unable to have children, or a man or woman who does not want to marry, or of two lesbian lovers who want to have a child with the genotype of one in an ovum of the other, or of other special cases that might come to mind ( 40 ). It must be, first, pointed out that the cloning technology has not yet been developed to an extent that would make possible to produce a healthy human individual by cloning. Second, and most important, the individual produced by cloning would be a very different person from the one whose genotype is cloned, as belabored above.

Ethical, social, and religious values will come into play when seeking to decide whether a person might be allowed to be cloned. Most people are likely to disapprove. Indeed, many countries have prohibited human cloning. In 2004, the issue of cloning was raised in several countries where legislatures were also considering whether research on embryonic stem cells should be supported or allowed. The Canadian Parliament on March 12, 2004 passed legislation permitting research with stem cells from embryos under specific conditions, but human cloning was banned, and the sale of sperm and payments to egg donors and surrogate mothers were prohibited. The French Parliament on July 9, 2004 adopted a new bioethics law that allows embryonic stem cell research but considers human cloning a “crime against the human species.” Reproductive cloning experiments would be punishable by up to 20 y in prison. Japan’s Cabinet Council for Science and Technology Policy voted on July 23, 2004 to adopt policy recommendations that would permit the limited cloning of human embryos for scientific research but not the cloning of individuals. On January 14, 2001, the British government amended the Human Fertilization and Embryology Act of 1990 by allowing embryo research on stem cells and allowing therapeutic cloning. The Human Fertilization and Embryology Act of 2008 explicitly prohibited reproductive cloning but allowed experimental stem cell research for treating diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, and Alzheimer’s disease ( 41 , 42 ). On February 3, 2014, the House of Commons voted to legalize a gene therapy technique known as mitochondrial replacement, or three-person in vitro fertilization, in which mitochondria from a donor’s egg cell contribute to a couple’s embryo ( 43 ). In the United States, there are currently no federal laws that ban cloning completely ( 42 ). Thirteen states (Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Iowa, Indiana, Massachusetts, Maryland, Michigan, North Dakota, New Jersey, Rhode Island, South Dakota, and Virginia) ban reproductive cloning, and three states (Arizona, Maryland, and Missouri) prohibit use of public funds for research on reproductive cloning ( 44 ).

Therapeutic Cloning

Cloning of embryonic cells (stem cells) could have important health applications in organ transplantation, treating injured nerve cells, and otherwise. In addition to SCNT, the method discussed above for cloning individuals, another technique is available, induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs), although SCNT has proven to be much more effective and less costly. The objective is to obtain pluripotent stem cells that have the potential to differentiate in any of the three germ layers characteristic of humans and other animals: endoderm (lungs and interior lining of stomach and gastrointestinal tract), ectoderm (nervous systems and epidermal tissues), and mesoderm (muscle, blood, bone, and urogenital tissues). Stem cells, with more limited possibilities than pluripotent cells, can also be used for specific therapeutic purposes ( 45 ).

Stem cell therapy consists of cloning embryonic cells to obtain pluripotent or other stem cells that can be used in regenerative medicine, to treat or prevent all sorts of diseases, and for the transplantation of organs. At present, bone marrow transplantation is a widely used form of stem cell therapy; stem blood cells are used in the treatment of sickle cell anemia, a lethal disease when untreated, which is very common in places where malaria is rife because heterozygous individuals are protected against infection by Plasmodium falciparum , the agent of malignant malaria. One of the most promising applications of therapeutic cloning is the growth of organs for transplantation, using stem cells that have the genome of the organ recipient. Two major hurdles would be overcome. One is the possibility of immune rejection; the other is the availability of organs from suitable donors. Another regenerative medical application that might be anticipated is the therapeutic growth of nerve cells. There are hundreds of thousands of individuals throughout the world paralyzed from the neck down and confined for life to a wheelchair as a consequence of damage to the spinal cord below the neck, often as a consequence of a car accident or a fall, that interrupts the transmission of nerve activity from the brain to the rest of the body and vice versa. A small growth of nerve cells sufficient to heal the wound in the spinal cord would have enormous health consequences for the wounded persons and for society.

At present, the one gene therapy modification of the embryo that can be practiced is mitochondrial replacement (MR), legalized in the United Kingdom by the House of Commons on February 3, 2014 ( 43 ), as mentioned earlier. Mutations in the mitochondrial DNA of about 1 in 6,500 individuals account for a variety of severe and often fatal conditions, including blindness, muscular weakness, and heart failure ( 46 ). With MR, the embryo possesses nuclear DNA from the mother and father, as well as mtDNA from a donor female who has healthy mtDNA. However, MR remains technically challenging, with a low rate of success. One complicating issue is that mtDNA replacement is not 100% successful; disease-causing mutant mtDNA persists in the developing embryo and may account for eventual diseases due to heteroplasmy, at least in some tissues. A second issue of concern is that mtDNA disorders often appear late in life. It remains unknown whether the benefits of MR as currently practiced may persist in advanced age.

The author declares no conflict of interest.

This paper results from the Arthur M. Sackler Colloquium of the National Academy of Sciences, “In the Light of Evolution IX: Clonal Reproduction: Alternatives to Sex,” held January 9–10, 2015, at the Arnold and Mabel Beckman Center of the National Academies of Sciences and Engineering in Irvine, CA. The complete program and video recordings of most presentations are available on the NAS website at www.nasonline.org/ILE_IX_Clonal_Reproduction .

This article is a PNAS Direct Submission.

How We Feel about Human Cloning

Guest post by Joshua May

Suppose you desperately want a healthy child to build a family of your own.  As is increasingly common, however, you can’t do it naturally – whether from infertility, a genetic disease you don’t want to pass on, or a non-traditional relationship.  If you seek a genetic connection with the child, there are some limitations to the main alternatives: adoption, surrogacy, and in vitro fertilization.  You may yearn for more options.

How would you feel about cloning?  Take the nucleus of a cell from yourself or a loved one, then put it into an egg that will eventually develop into a baby that shares nearly all the genes of the donor cell.  The resulting baby will simply be a kind of ‘delayed twin’ of the donor.

Most people believe this is immoral.  There’s a bit more support for therapeutic uses that merely create new tissue, for example.  But, at least in the US and UK, people overwhelmingly condemn cloning for the purposes of creating new human lives.  In fact, a recent poll suggests there is little disagreement in America over this issue, where human cloning is among the most widely condemned topics (alongside polygamy and infidelity).

That’s what people think, but how do they feel ?  Controversial bioethical issues often generate intense feelings.  Some bioethicists treat cloning in particular as a line in the sand that we mustn’t cross, for fear of sliding down a slippery slope to a dystopia.

Consider Leon Kass, who played a major role in public policy as chair of George W. Bush’s President’s Council on Bioethics.  Kass argues that there is wisdom in repugnance toward human cloning, allowing us to ‘intuit and feel, immediately and without argument, the violation of things that we rightfully hold dear’.  As opposed to mere unease or sadness, Kass and some others have argued that disgust is such a powerful and distinctive emotion that we should take it seriously as a moral guide when deliberating about ethical issues.

An empirical claim lurks.  Such bioethicists assume that people in general share their reaction of repugnance. Besides, if we can uncover the emotional reactions people tend to feel toward disputed moral issues, then we can better understand why they hold the beliefs they do.  Does the prospect of cloning humans make us sick?  Scared?  Sad?  Angry?  Excited?  At ease?

In my paper , I provide some initial evidence that people (at least in the States) feel primarily anxious and curious about human reproductive cloning.  These were the most frequently self-reported negative and positive emotions, not disgust, fear, sadness, anger, excitement, amusement, comfort, or joy. Now disgust was interestingly the third most commonly reported negative emotion when selected from a pre-set list.  But only about one third of participants selected it, and even fewer mentioned disgust before seeing such a list.  Moreover, the term ‘disgust’ is used in many ways, sometimes just to indicate one’s moral disapproval rather than an emotion.  For example, writer Philip Pullman once condemned a ban on sending prisoners books in prison, calling it ‘disgusting’ .  Such uses of the term may well be to merely signal one’s disapproval, not to report an emotional reaction that is guiding one’s judgment.

Data on people’s reactions don’t directly support the morality or immorality of human cloning.  But there are various implications.

First, it’s not so clear that there’s a ‘widespread’ reaction of repugnance to human cloning that we should heed.  Our emotional reactions are more complicated and varied.  Even if there are sound arguments against human cloning, arguments from repugnance rest on shaky ground.

Second, we should be careful to attribute certain reactions to the populace without some empirical data in support.  We should scrutinise, for example, talk of ‘the widespread repugnances of humankind,’ as Kass has put it.

Finally, I hope this initial dataset will motivate further research on how we think and feel about various contemporary moral issues.  The kinds of reactions people have can illuminate their concerns and the nature of the moral disagreements that animate public discourse.

When it comes to human cloning, for example, we now have some evidence that people don’t necessarily feel repugnance toward it and thus don’t perceive cloning as violating things they hold dear.  The combination of anxiety and curiosity may indicate instead that the morality of human cloning is question because it’s perceived as novel and unpredictable.

Read the full paper here .

Comment and Opinion | Open Debate

The views and opinions expressed on this site are solely those of the original authors. They do not necessarily represent the views of BMJ and should not be used to replace medical advice. Please see our full Blog Terms and Conditions .

All BMJ blog posts are posted under a CC-BY-NC licence

BMJ Journals

• Open access
• Published: 29 July 2003

Human cloning laws, human dignity and the poverty of the policy making dialogue

• Timothy Caulfield 1 , 2 , 3  

BMC Medical Ethics volume  4 , Article number:  3 ( 2003 ) Cite this article

104k Accesses

10 Citations

10 Altmetric

Metrics details

The regulation of human cloning continues to be a significant national and international policy issue. Despite years of intense academic and public debate, there is little clarity as to the philosophical foundations for many of the emerging policy choices. The notion of "human dignity" is commonly used to justify cloning laws. The basis for this justification is that reproductive human cloning necessarily infringes notions of human dignity.

The author critiques one of the most commonly used ethical justifications for cloning laws – the idea that reproductive cloning necessarily infringes notions of human dignity. He points out that there is, in fact, little consensus on point and that the counter arguments are rarely reflected in formal policy. Rarely do domestic or international instruments provide an operational definition of human dignity and there is rarely an explanation of how, exactly, dignity is infringed in the context reproductive cloning.

It is the author's position that the lack of thoughtful analysis of the role of human dignity hurts the broader public debate about reproductive cloning, trivializes the value of human dignity as a normative principle and makes it nearly impossible to critique the actual justifications behind many of the proposed policies.

Peer Review reports

Dolly, the most famous sheep in history, was euthanised on February 14 this year at the age of 6 after being diagnosed with an incurable lung disorder. [ 1 ] Dolly was a famous symbol of both the great possibilities of science and a focal point for public concerns about the social impact of biotechnology. Almost immediately after Dolly's birth, there were calls to introduce regulatory controls of the technology. Though most countries still do not have specific cloning laws [ 2 ], it continues to be a significant national and international policy issue. But despite years of intense academic and public debate, there remains little clarity as to the philosophical foundations for many of the emerging policy choices.

In this paper, I briefly explore one of the most commonly used ethical justifications for cloning laws, the idea that reproductive cloning necessarily infringes notions of human dignity. As we will see, there is, in fact, little consensus on point. Unfortunately, the counter arguments are rarely reflected in formal policy. Few, if any, domestic or international instruments provide an operational definition of human dignity [ 3 , 4 ]and there is rarely an explanation of how, exactly, dignity is infringed in the context reproductive cloning.

Admittedly, I do not provide my own definition of human dignity. I will, however, endeavor to divine the likely definition of human dignity at play in the context of a given social concern. We will see that regardless of the definition that seems to be implied within the social concerns outlined below, there are legitimate counter arguments that weaken the claim that human reproductive cloning necessarily infringes human dignity. Many thoughtful scholars have already done an admirable job attempting to define human dignity and it place in the policy making process. [ 5 – 8 ] The goal of this paper is not to provide a comprehensive review of these possible definitions, and there are many, or to definitively answer the question of whether human reproductive cloning infringes human dignity. Rather, in this paper I argue that the lack of thoughtful policy analysis of the role of human dignity hurts the broader public debate about reproductive cloning, trivializes the potential value of human dignity as a normative principle and makes it nearly impossible to critique the actual justifications behind many of the proposed policies.

Concerns About Human Dignity

Numerous arguments of varying persuasive force have been put forward as justifications for a ban on reproductive cloning. To cite just a few examples, some commentators have suggested that the visceral reaction that many in the public have had to the idea of human reproductive cloning is, from a policy perspective, significant enough to justify, on its own, a regulatory response. [ 9 ] Others have suggested reproductive cloning would have an adverse impact on the social definition of family: "Modernity's assault on the family would thus be complete with the development of cloning. Already stripped of its social function, the family would now be rendered biologically unnecessary, if not irrelevant".[ 10 ] And, of course, there are the clear health and safety issues that are far from being resolved.[ 11 ] Indeed, Dolly's death, while not definitively traceable to the cloning process, again highlighted the possible health risks associated with reproductive cloning. [ 12 ]

However, the broadest concern, and the concern that is often explicitly mentioned in relevant policy statements, is that human reproductive cloning, at some level, infringes notions of human dignity. One of the best known illustrations is UNESCO's Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights which recommends a ban on "practices which are contrary to human dignity, such as reproductive cloning". [ 13 ] Similarly, in 1998, the World Health Organization reaffirmed that "cloning for the replication of human individuals is ethically unacceptable and contrary to human dignity and integrity".[ 14 ] The Council of Europe's Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and its Additional Protocol on the Prohibition of Cloning Human Beings states that: "the instrumentalization of human beings through the deliberate creation of genetically identical human beings is contrary to human dignity and thus constitutes a misuse of biology and medicine".[ 15 ]

Despite the existence of such policy statements, and despite almost universal public objection to the idea of reproduction cloning [ 16 ] there is, at least in the academic community, little agreement about the role of human dignity in this context. Indeed, it has been suggested that "aside from the moral debate on whether the embryo is a human being arguments about human dignity do not hold up well under rational reflection".[ 17 ]

Below I briefly consider some of the reasons commentators remain skeptical of the claim that reproductive cloning infringes human dignity. The goal is not to provide a comprehensive analysis of all the relevant critiques, but to simply highlight a few of the counter arguments and substantive considerations that remain largely absent from a consideration of human dignity in the context of formal policy development.

Autonomy and Uniqueness

At the heart of many of the human dignity arguments, often implicitly, is the idea that copying someone's genome is a morally problematic action. From the perspective of human dignity, the concern is founded on the assumption that a clone's autonomy will be compromised and that a person's genome is singularly important to human uniqueness.[ 18 ] For those who espouse this view, dignity is obviously closely related to autonomy (likely to some version of the classic Kantian view of dignity) and the ability to make autonomous choices. Moreover, dignity is connected to human "uniqueness," though it is rarely explained why this is so. As Donald Bruce argues: "Willfully to copy the human genetic identity seems to go beyond something inherent in human dignity and individuality". [ 19 ] Many policy statements, such as the few noted above, seem to adopt this view and specifically link genetic identity with the concept of human dignity. Other statements simply assert that "the production of identical human individuals" [ 20 ] or the creation of a "genetic 'copy"' [ 21 ] should be banned.

The ethos that underlies these positions is, of course, both scientifically inaccurate and philosophically problematic. Without resolving the point, let us assume that, somehow, uniqueness is central to an individual's dignity. We must ask, then, what role our genome has in our uniqueness and, more to the point, why copying it infringes human dignity. Our genome plays a key role in how we develop, but it is hardly determinative of who we are as individuals. Is an identical twin's dignity compromised because of the mere existence of a sibling with an identical genome? More importantly, our genes do not, on their own, bind our future life to a particular course. Absent other external factors (such as social or parental expectations), an individual's autonomy is not compromised solely because he/she does not have a unique genome. To believe otherwise is to adopt a deterministic view of the role of genes that is simply wrong. [ 22 , 23 ] There are very few human traits that are controlled solely by genetic factors, and this is particularly true of the infinitely complex characteristics that make us who we are as individuals. [ 24 ] A human clone would be wholly unique and, as such, it is difficult to maintain that even a "uniqueness" view of human dignity is dependant on having a unique genome.

From a policy perspective, it is worth noting that a variety of commentators have long questioned the deterministic argument that underlies the autonomy/uniqueness concern about reproductive cloning. For example, shortly after the birth of Dolly Sir John Polkinghorne noted that " [o]ne of the by-products of the furor about Dolly has been to remind thoughtful people of the poverty and implausibility of a genetic reductionist account of human nature". [ 25 ] George Wright takes this idea to an extreme length by suggesting that reproductive cloning would actually promote human dignity by proving the inaccuracy of genetic determinism. "Human cloning may well serve to highlight, to emphasize, and to set off with greater clarity, quite apart from anyone's intentions, the mysterious capacities that comprise and express our human dignity".[ 26 ]

Instrumentalism

For some, it is not the technical copying of a genome that gives rise to concerns about reproductive cloning, but the possibility that cloning will be used in a way that instrumentalizes the clone. Again, this issue is likely tied to the concern that reproductive cloning would infringe the basic Kantian tenet to treat every human being as an end, not as a means. [ 27 ] It is certainly possible that the use of reproductive cloning for the purpose of creating an individual for a particular life role could infringe the resultant clone's dignity. However, it is the pressure or social expectations (expectations that are necessarily informed by an inaccurate view of the role of genes) placed on the individual clone that challenge the clone's human dignity, not the process of reproductive cloning. As noted by Pattinson, the act of cloning could be implicated in an intention to "violate the rights of the clone in the future." He goes on to note, however, that in such circumstances, "it is not the cloning as such that violates the clone's rights, but the intention to make the clone worse off (relative to its alternatives) in the future". [ 28 ]

That said, some argue that the mere act of cloning instrumentalizes the clone, "because the clone is created for the primary benefit not of the individual but of some third party as a means to an end". [ 29 ] This argument is problematic for a number of reasons. First, it raises the interesting question of whether an act done prior to the birth of an individual can infringe the dignity of that individual. Even if an individual is created with instrumental intentions, if, after the birth of the individual, he/she is treated as an equal member of the community, as an autonomous individual and with respect, is the individual's dignity still being infringed?

Second, if one accepts that our genes do not determine our life course or who we are as individuals, it is unclear how the technical act of cloning is more problematic, in relation to instrumentalism, than having children through IVF or, for that matter, making children the natural way for the sole purpose of producing an heir, labour or a means of old age support. Of course, one could argue that, for the sake of consistency, these latter activities should also be banned. However, monitoring and assessing the motives of perspective parents would not, quite obviously, be a practical or appropriate state policy.

Finally, these kind of instrumentalist concerns assume that cloning would always be done for instrumentalist purposes, which may not be the case (e.g., individuals may simply wish to use cloning for the same reason people use IVF, for the purpose of having biologically related offspring). As noted by Steven Malby: "From the point of view of dignity, the desire to treat infertility clearly does not violate any of the parameters associated with an objective perspective of dignity". [ 30 ] At a minimum, it is hard to support the argument that all forms of reproductive cloning will inevitably infringe human dignity. "We should distinguish among the different forms, uses, and contexts of human cloning in assessing the relationship between cloning and human dignity".[ 31 ]

Replication

Closely tied to the concerns regarding instrumentalism and the copying of an individual's genome, are the claims that the asexual nature of the process is "unnatural," that cloning is "replication" and not "reproduction" and that, therefore, by implication, cloning degrades human dignity. Gilbert Meilaender notes that we "find asexual reproduction only in the lowest forms of life. ... Children conceived sexually are 'begotten, not made.' When a man and a woman beget a child, that child is formed out of what they are. What we beget is like ourselves, equal to us in dignity and not at our disposal". [ 32 ]

Though individuals may not feel comfortable with the process (just as many did not feel comfortable with cadaveric research, in vitro fertilization and sperm donation), there must be something about the "replication" process that infringes human dignity. It is unclear how, exactly, the asexual nature of the process, on its own, is problematic from the perspective of human dignity. Again, people may have nefarious motivations for using cloning – just as they may have questionable reasons for using IVF or having children the natural way – but aside from religious arguments regarding the moral status of the embryo and the significance of sexual union, there seems to be little to support the notion that "replication" infringes human dignity.

Meilaender's claim that being created by a sexual union that is beyond "reason or will" is central to our dignity seems to suggest that the thousands of children born as a result of reproductive technologies are, somehow, less worthy of dignity. [ 33 ] Surely the process used to produce an individual is completely irrelevant to the respect and dignity the individual deserves once born. In fact, if we lived in a society that allowed individuals created by cloning, or any other process, to be treated as less than human, reproductive cloning would be far from our most pressing policy concern.

Community Dignity

It has also been suggested that reproductive cloning may adversely impact "communal dignity" or "the dignity of humankind". [ 34 ] While a detailed discussion of this issues is beyond the scope of this paper, it should be remembered that not all agree that "communities" have dignity in the same way that individuals have dignity. Indeed, most traditional legal applications of human dignity emphasize not the community but the protection of individual rights, often in an effort to guard against state imposed incursion upon individual autonomy. [ 35 , 36 ] As summarized by Deirk Ullrich in relation to law in Canada and Germany: "human dignity is an indispensable compass in our continuing journey to promote and protect the rights and freedoms of the individual". [ 37 ] That said, there are those who take a more expansive, less Western centric, view of dignity, suggesting, for instance, that dignity is also relevant to the way in "which groups visualize and constitute themselves." [ 38 ] This type of reference to "communal dignity" can be found in documents such as the UNESCO Declaration: "no research or its applications concerning the human genome, in particular in the fields of biology, genetics and medicine, should prevail over the respect for human rights, fundamental freedoms and human dignity of individuals or, where applicable, of groups of people" [ 39 ]

However, even if one accepts a community view of human dignity, we see that in the context of reproductive cloning much of the concerns remain closely associated with individual autonomy. For example, Malby poses the question thus: "Does dignity impose a responsibility to protect a key feature of humanity (our 'genetic heritage'), from which (to an undetermined extent) we acquire key capacities such as autonomy and the capacity for moral thought?".[ 40 ] But if one's genetic make up is not a key feature to our autonomy and moral thought, and few could genuinely claim that it is, then a central plank of this concern is lost.

The Policy Response

Early in the cloning debate, many of the above points were noted by well-known scholars from a wide range of philosophical perspectives. [ 41 – 43 ] Nevertheless, there are few policy making entities that have, at least on the surface, engaged the human dignity debate in any meaningful manner. [ 44 ]

In Canada, for example, the government has recommended a ban on all forms of human cloning. The Health Canada information document that accompanied the publication of the proposed law simply claims, without any explanation of how or why, that human cloning "would be banned because it treats human beings as though they were objects and does not respect the individuality of human beings". [ 45 ] A later report by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health also recommends a ban on human cloning. The Committee noted that the recommendation is based on a number of core principles, including human dignity, but the Committee makes no attempt to relate the recommendation to the notion of human dignity. [ 46 ]

The two US reports, the 2002 US President's Council on Bioethics [ 47 ] and the 1997 Report of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission [ 48 ], do, at least, discuss the fallacy of genetic determinism. Nevertheless, they do not connect this analysis to the issue of human dignity and both conclude that reproductive cloning still creates problems in relation to individual autonomy. For example, the President's Council concludes that " [w]hat matters is the cloned individual's perception of the significance of the 'precedent life' and the way that perception cramps and limits a sense of self and independence". [ 49 ] Because this concern is based on the psychological harm associated with deterministic expectations, and not on the actual impact of cloning technology, they do little to support the argument that cloning, as a technology, infringes human dignity. In fact, as I have noted elsewhere, cloning laws that are not accompanied by thoughtful policy analysis may have the unintended effect of legitimizes perceptions of genetic determinism.[ 50 ]

Why Human Dignity?

If one were to take a skeptical view of the policy making process, it would not be hard to conclude that concern for human dignity is used as a justification for cloning laws precisely because the notion of human dignity is both so revered and so ill-defined. This fits well with the broad, generalized concerns that the public seems to have about reproductive cloning. As noted by Ronald Dworkin, the public isn't terribly worried about safety or research ethics, but have "some deeper, less articulate ground for that revulsion, even if they have not or perhaps cannot fully articulate that ground, but can express it only in heated and logically inappropriate language, like [a] bizarre reference to 'fundamental human rights..."' [ 51 ]

This view of public attitudes is supported by survey data. Risk and safety are not the issues driving public reaction. When asked, the public often lists morality and/or religion as the basis for their objection to human cloning. [ 52 ] As such, policy makers can safely use the concept of human dignity to reflect general unspecified condemnation. For a good percentage of the public, human reproductive cloning simply seems immoral and, for lack of a better philosophical argument, it is declared that it infringes human dignity. Dworkin puts it in less secular terms: "It is wrong, people say, particularly after more familiar objections have been found wanting, to play God". [ 53 ]

Another reason concerns for human dignity may be used so frequently as a justification for cloning bans is that they allow policy makers to avoid more socially controversial and politically charged rationales, such as those based on a particular religious perspective or abortion politics. It is far easier, at least politically, to say that a given law is based on concern for human dignity than on, for example, a Christian view of the moral status of the embryo – though there seems little doubt that religious perspectives have played an important role in the policy process. [ 54 ]

In addition, the use of human dignity allows policy makers to avoid the appearance that they are seeking to regulate morality. For many legal scholars, moral belief or repugnance "is not sufficient to outlaw conduct engaged in by consenting adults". [ 55 ]

Finally, I suspect that much of the debate remains scientifically ill-informed. Media images of reproductive cloning, which are everywhere, often portray clones as "carbon copies". [ 56 ] These representations undoubtedly impact the public's "intuitive" response to the technology and the public's desire to ban the technology.

In fact, I too have intuitive concerns regarding the appropriateness of human reproductive cloning. I believe that reproductive cloning will have little practical use, the health and safety concerns will likely endure for decades, and it may create some challenging genetic enhancement issues. There are, no doubt, sound reasons to consider the tight regulation of reproductive cloning.

Why, then, is the ad hoc use of the notion of human dignity in the context of reproductive cloning a problem? It hurts public debate. Though I am tremendously skeptical of the worth of intuitive reactions as a justification for a given law, particularly criminal prohibitions [ 57 ] if general cultural anxiety is one of the rationales for a proposed ban, then this should be explicitly stated. Policy makers should not dress up the argument as a concern for human dignity in order to create the perception of legitimacy. By doing so, transparency in policy making is obscured or even lost. As noted by Shaun Pattinson in his critique of the Canadian government's use of human dignity as a justification for a ban: "Once again we are left with the feeling that other arguments are in play but remain unsure as to what those arguments are". [ 58 ] But without knowing that these "other arguments" are, it is impossible to have an informed policy discussion.

If the concerns about cloning are based on the fear that we live in a world increasingly governed by inaccurate views of genetic determinism and, therefore, people may have inappropriate ideas of what cloning can do, [ 59 ] then this too should be stated. Indeed, it could be argued that we should be focussing our policy making energy not on the technology but on the possible causes of the deterministic sentiments that may motivate the desire to use reproductive cloning. Unfortunately, "genetic determinism" is a much more challenging and amorphous policy target as compared with human cloning technology.

In addition, using human dignity as a blanket argument against all forms of human cloning makes it much more difficult to reflect rationally on the true risks and benefits of the technology. Such claims can have powerful rhetorical force (no one is against the idea of human dignity!). [ 60 ] But, as noted by Beyleveld and Brownsword, "from any perspective that values rational debate about human genetics, it is an abuse of the concept of human dignity to operate it as a veto on any practice that is intuitively disliked".[ 61 ]

Finally, we are in danger of trivializing and degrading the potential normative value of human dignity. There seems little doubt that the rapid advances that are occurring in the field of science, and biotechnology in particular, will continue to create new social and regulatory challenges, many of which may also raise issues associated with notions of human dignity. The way we handle current science policy issues stands as a precedent for future analysis. The ad hoc application of human dignity in relation to human cloning will undoubtedly impact how it is applied to future technologies. We should strive to apply the principle in a logical and coherent fashion otherwise the notion of human dignity is in danger of being eroded to the point where it stands as nothing more than a symbol of amorphous cultural anxiety.

Author's Contributions

This paper is the original work of the author.

Vogel G: Dolly goes to greener pastures. Science. 2003, 299: 1163-

Google Scholar  

Bonnicksen A: Crafting a cloning policy: from Dolly to stem cells. Washington: Georgetown University Press. 2002

Schachter O: Human dignity as a normative concept. Am J Int Law. 1983, 77: 848-854.

Article   Google Scholar  

Malby S: Human dignity and human reproductive cloning. Heath and Human Rights. 2002, 6: 103-135.

Pullman D: Universalism, Particularism and the Ethics of Dignity. Christian Bioethics. 2001, 7: 333-358. 10.1076/chbi.7.3.333.6876.

Feldman D: Human Dignity as a Legal Value. Public Law. 1999, 682-702.

Gewirth A: Human Dignity as the Basis of Rights. In The Constitution of Rights: Human Dignity and American Values. Edited by: Meyer M, Parent W. 1992, London: Cornell University Press, 10-46.

Kass L: The wisdom of repugnance. The New Republic. June 2, 1997

Mohler RA: The brave new world of cloning: a Christian worldview perspective. In Human Cloning: Religious Responses. Edited by: Louisville: Westminster John Know Press. 1997, Cole-Turner R, 91-103.

Vogel G: Misguided chromosomes foil primate cloning. Science. 2003, 300: 225-10.1126/science.300.5617.225.

Giles G, Knight J: Dolly's death leaves researchers woolly on clone ageing issue. Nature. 2003, 421: 776-10.1038/421776a.

UNESCO: Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights. Paris. 1997

World Health Organization: Ethical, Scientific and Social Implications of Cloning in Human Health. Geneva. 1998

Council of Europe: Additional Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine, on the Prohibition of Cloning Human Beings. Paris. 1998

Saad L: Cloning of humans is a turn off to most Americans. Gallup News Service. May 16, 2002

Shalev C: Human Cloning and Human Rights: A Commentary. Health and Human Rights. 2002, 6: 137-151.

Williamson R: Human reproductive cloning is unethical because it undermines autonomy: commentary on Savulescu. J Med Ethics. 1999, 25: 96-97.

Bruce D: A View from Edinburgh. In Human Cloning: Religious Responses. Edited by: Cole-Turner R. 1997, Louisville: Westminster John Know Press, X-Y.

Scientific Committee of the International Society of Bioethics (SIBI): Bioethics Declaration of Gijon. Gijon. 2000

HUGO Ethics Committee: Statement on Cloning. Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics (EJAIB). 1999, 9: 70-

Rovane C: Genetics and personal identity. In A Companion to Genethics. Edited by: Burley J, Harris J. 2002, Maiden, Mass: Blackwell Publisher, 245-252.

Caulfield T: Cloning and Genetic Determinism: A Call for Consistency. Nat Biotech. 2001, 19: 403-10.1038/88047.

Nuffield Council on Bioethics: Genetics and Human Behavior: The Ethical Context. London. 2002

Polkinghorne J: Cloning and the Moral Imperative. In Human Cloning: Religious Responses. Edited by: Cole-Turner R. 1997, Louisville: Westminster John Know Press, 35-41.

Wright TG: Second Thoughts: How Human Cloning Can Promote Human Dignity. Valparaiso University Law Review. 2000, 35: 1-35.

Beyleveld D, Brownsword R: Human Dignity, Human Rights, and Human Genetics. The Modern Law Review. 1998, 61: 661-681. 10.1111/1468-2230.00172.

Pattinson S: Reproductive Cloning: Can Cloning Harm the Clone?. Med L Rev. 2002, 10: 295-307.

Meilaender G: A Case Against Cloning. In Beyond Cloning: Religion and the Remaking of Humanity. Edited by: Cole-Turner R. 2001, Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 77-83.

Meilaender G: A Case Against Cloning. In Beyond Cloning: Religion and the Remaking of Humanity. Edited by: Harrisburg: Trinity Press International. 2001, Cole-Turner R, 77-83.

Kolnai A: Dignity. In Dignity, Character and Self-Respect. Edited by: Dillon RS. 1995, New York: Routledge, 53-75.

Ullrich D: Concurring Visions: Human Dignity in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Basic law of the Federal Republic of Germany. Global Jurist Frontiers. 2003, 3: [ http://www.bepress.com/gj/frontiers/vol3/iss1/art1/ ]

Lewontin RC: The Confusion over Cloning. The New York Review of Books. 23 October 1997, [ http://www.nybooks.com/articles/article-preview?article_id=1046 ]

Harris J: Cloning and Human Dignity. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics. 1998, 7: 163-167. 10.1017/S0963180198702087.

Steinbock B: Cloning Human Beings: Sorting Through the Ethical Issues. In Human Cloning: Science, Ethics and Public Policy. Edited by: MacKinnon B. 2000, Chicago: University of Illinois Press, X-Y.

Health Canada: Proposal for Legislation Governing Assisted Human Reproduction: An Overview. Ottawa. 2001

House of Commons Standing Committee on Health: Assisted Human Reproduction: Building Families. Ottawa. 2001

President's Council on Bioethics: Human Cloning and Human Dignity. Washington. 2002

National Bioethics Advisory Commission: Cloning Human Beings. Rockville. 1997

Dworkin R: Sovereign Virtue: The Theory and Practice of Equality. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 2000

Pew Research Center: Public Makes Distinctions on Genetic Research. April 9, 2002, [ http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=152 ]

Donley Young C: A Comparative Look at the US and British Approaches to Stem Cell Research. Albany Law Review. 2002, 65: 831-855.

Cowan J: Fear Factor: Is Jurassic Park Dictating Canada's Policy Towards Cloning?. Saturday Night. 16-17. 14 July 2001

Caulfield T, Knowles L, Meslin E: Law and Policy in the Era of Reproductive Genetics. J Med Ethics.

AFP: Clonaid Chief Offers to Clone Israeli, Palestinian Victims. 18 March 2003, [ http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/18/1047749730611.html ]

Gibbins R: How in the World Can You Contest Equal Human Dignity?. National Journal of Constitutional Law. 2000, 12: 25-30.

Pre-publication history

The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6939/4/3/prepub

Download references

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Lori Sheremeta, Nola Ries, Angela Long, Jai Shah, Jason Robert, the peer reviewers and to Genome Prairie, the Stem Cell Network and the AHFMR for their funding support.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Law, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, Canada

Timothy Caulfield

Health Law Institute, Faculty of Law, University of Alberta, Canada

Health Law Institute 4th Floor, Law Centre University of Alberta Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 2H5, Canada

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Timothy Caulfield .

Additional information

Competing interests.

None declared.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Caulfield, T. Human cloning laws, human dignity and the poverty of the policy making dialogue. BMC Med Ethics 4 , 3 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6939-4-3

Download citation

Received : 24 April 2003

Accepted : 29 July 2003

Published : 29 July 2003

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6939-4-3

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Human Dignity
• Counter Argument
• Policy Making Process
• Genetic Determinism
• Human Cloning

BMC Medical Ethics

ISSN: 1472-6939

• General enquiries: [email protected]

Reproductive Cloning Arguments Pro and Con

"Human Cloning"  by  newsonline  is licensed under  CC BY 2.0

Cloning is a form of asexual reproduction. A child produced by cloning would be the genetic duplicate of an existing person. If you cloned yourself, the resulting child would be neither your son or daughter nor your twin brother or sister, but a new category of human being: your clone.

The great majority of people have an intuitive sense that human beings should not be cloned. Arguments offered for and against reproductive cloning are given below. A summary comment follows at the end of the arguments.

Arguments Against Reproductive Cloning

1. Reproductive cloning would foster an understanding of children, and of people in general, as objects that can be designed and manufactured to possess specific characteristics.

2. Reproductive cloning would diminish the sense of uniqueness of an individual. It would violate deeply and widely held convictions concerning human individuality and freedom, and could lead to a devaluation of clones in comparison with non-clones.

3. Cloned children would unavoidably be raised "in the shadow" of their nuclear donor, in a way that would strongly tend to constrain individual psychological and social development.

4. Reproductive cloning is inherently unsafe. At least 95% of mammalian cloning experiments have resulted in failures in the form of miscarriages, stillbirths, and life-threatening anomalies; some experts believe no clones are fully healthy. The technique could not be developed in humans without putting the physical safety of the clones and the women who bear them at grave risk.

5. If reproductive cloning is permitted to happen and becomes accepted, it is difficult to see how any other dangerous applications of genetic engineering technology could be proscribed.

Rebuttals to Arguments Against Reproductive Cloning

1 and 2. This will be true only if we allow it to be true. There is no reason that individuals and society can't learn to embrace human clones as just one more element of human diversity and creativity.

3. The problem of "expectations" is hardly unique to cloned children. Most parents learn to communicate their expectations about their children in a moderate and ultimately positive way.

4. Every medical technology carries with it a degree of risk. Cloning techniques will eventually be perfected in mammals and will then be suitable for human trials.

5. Human society can accept or reject any proposed technology on its own merits.

Arguments in Favor of Reproductive Cloning

1. Reproductive cloning can provide genetically related children for people who cannot be helped by other fertility treatments (i.e., who do not produce eggs or sperm).

2. Reproductive cloning would allow lesbians to have a child without having to use donor sperm, and gay men to have a child that does not have genes derived from an egg donor (though, of course, a surrogate would have to carry the pregnancy).

3. Reproductive cloning could allow parents of a child who has died to seek redress for their loss.

4. Cloning is a reproductive right, and should be allowed once it is judged to be no less safe than natural reproduction.

Rebuttals to Arguments in Favor of Reproductive Cloning

1. The number of men and women who do not produce eggs or sperm at all is very small, and has been greatly reduced by modern assisted-reproduction techniques. If cloning could be perfected and used for this limited group, it would be all but impossible to prevent its use from spreading. Further, this argument appropriates the phrase "genetically related" to embrace a condition that has never before occurred in human history, one which abolishes the genetic variations that have always existed between parent and child.

2. Even if cloning were safe, it would be impossible to allow reproductive cloning for lesbians or gay men without making it generally available to all. Policy and social changes that protect lesbian and gay families are a much more pressing need.

3. Throughout history, parents who have lost children have grieved and sought consolation from family and community. "Replacing" the deceased child by cloning degrades and dehumanizes the child, its replacement, and all of us.

4. Rights are socially negotiated, and no "right" to clone oneself has ever been established. Furthermore, there is an immense difference between a woman's desire to terminate an unwanted pregnancy and the desire to create a genetic duplicate of another person. There is no inconsistency between supporting the former and opposing the latter.

Summary Comment

Most advocates of human cloning also advocate the genetic modification of the human species. Human cloning is a blunt form of eugenics-it "copies" an existing genome-while inheritable genetic modification allows the creation of "designer babies" through manipulation of individual genes. But cloning technologies are needed if inheritable genetic modification is to become commercially practicable. This is the deeper and more far-reaching motivation behind much of the advocacy of human cloning.

The Center for Genetics and Society believes that when all the arguments are considered together the case for allowing human cloning is not compelling, and that the harms of doing so are great.

Last modified August 3, 2021

Related Articles

Verve halts trial for lead gene editing program due to safety concerns.

Aggregated News

Verve Therapeutics  has  suspended enrollment  in the Phase Ib Heart-1 study evaluating its lead gene editing program VERVE-101 following a serious adverse event, the company announced Tuesday.

A patient, who received a 0.45-mg/kg dose of VERVE-101, developed a grade 3...

The TESCREAL bundle: Eugenics and the promise of utopia through artificial general intelligence

The stated goal of many organizations in the field of artificial intelligence (AI) is to develop artificial general intelligence (AGI), an imagined system with more intelligence than anything we have ever seen. Without seriously questioning whether such a system can...

A Jim Wilson start-up will conduct the first FDA-approved tests of a form of gene editing in infants

Acompany started by University of Pennsylvania scientist Jim Wilson has received FDA approval to test a form of gene editing in infants for the first time in the United States, the company said Thursday.

The Plymouth Meeting company, iECURE, is...

Pro-Lifers Are Up Against a Real-Life Crisis

WHEN THE ALABAMA Supreme Court ruled that fertilized embryos were “extrauterine children,” it did more than imperil the future of in vitro fertilization in Alabama and, potentially, the U.S. The  ruling , on the claimed “wrongful death” of frozen embryos...

The Center for Genetics and Society is fiscally sponsored by Tides Center, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. Please visit www.tides.org/state-nonprofit-disclosures for additional information. © 2023 Tides Center, through the Center for Genetics and Society. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy . Terms of Use .

The Ethics of Human Cloning

The American Enterprise , March 1, 1999.

Social critics James Q. Wilson and Leon Kass debate the social, psychological and ethical ramifications of human cloning. Wilson supports limited cloning to two-parent heterosexual families and believes the source of the egg should be restricted to race, ethnicity or sex, but parents should not deliberately try to create designer babies. Kass responds the requirement of a two parent family has not been realized in in-vitro fertilization regulations or even for adoption. Moreover he contends that cloning is the twin not the offspring of its source and that cloned child will more often be scrutinized in relation to the older child. A society that treats cloning as acceptable rationalizes fabrication as procreation.

In a new book from AEI Press, two prominent social critics clash over a controversial technology that is likely to be tried with humans in the near future. Following is an edited excerpt from the debate between James Q. Wilson and Leon Kass. Wilson, emeritus professor at UCLA, is chairman of the American Enterprise Institute’s Board of Academic Advisers. Kass, who holds an M.D. and a Ph.D. in biochemistry, is a Brady Fellow at AEI. The book-length exchange between these two men is available free from TAE as part of a special promotion.

JAMES Q. WILSON

“Family structure, not the method of reproduction, is what matters.”

LIKE MOST PEOPLE, I instinctively recoil from the idea of cloning human beings. But we ought to pause and identify what in the process is so distressing. My preliminary view is that the central problem is not creating an identical twin but creating it without parents. Children born of a woman–however the conception is produced–will in the great majority of cases enjoy that special irrational affection that has been vital to human upbringings for millennia. If she is married to a man and they, like the great majority of married couples, invest energy, love, and commitment in the child, the child is likely to do well.

My argument is that the structure of the family a child is born into is more important than the sexual process by which the child is produced. If Leon Kass and other opponents of cloning think that sexuality is more important than families, they should object to any form of assisted reproduction that does not involve parental coition. Many such forms now exist. Children are adopted by parents who did not give them birth. Artificial insemination produces children without sexual congress. Some forms of such insemination rely on sperm produced by a man other than the woman’s husband, while other forms involve the artificial insemination of a surrogate mother who will relinquish the baby to a married couple. By in vitro fertilization, eggs and sperm can be joined in a Petri dish and then transferred into the woman’s uterus.

I have mixed views about assisted reproduction. Some forms I endorse, others I worry about, still others I oppose. The two principles on which my views rest concern, first, the special relationship between infant and mother that is the product of childbirth, however conception was arranged, and second, the great advantage to children that comes from growing up in an intact, two-parent family.

Assisted reproduction, whether by artificial insemination or in vitro fertilization, is now relatively common. In none of those cases is the child the result of marital sex. And in some cases the child isnot genetically related to at least one parent. I am aware of no study that shows in vitro fertilization to have harmed the children’s mental or psychological status or their relationships with parents. A study in England compared children conceived by in vitro fertilization, or by artificial insemination with sperm from an unknown donor, with children who were sexually conceived and grew up in either birth oradoptive families. By every measure of parenting, the children who were the product of either an artificial fertilization or inseminationby a donor did better than children who were naturally conceived. The better parenting should not be surprising. Those parents had been struggling to have children; when a new technology made it possible, they were delighted, and that delight motivated them to be especially supportive of their offspring.

Some observers are opposed to all of these arrangements, no matterwhat their effect on children. Paul Ramsey argued in 1970 that for any third party–say, an egg or sperm donor–to be involved violates the marriage covenant. That is also the view of the Roman Catholic Church. My view is different: If the child is born of a woman who is part of a two-parent family, and both parents work hard to raise him or her properly, we poor mortals have done all that man and God might expect of us.

Matters become more complex when a surrogate mother is involved. There, a woman is inseminated by a man so that she may bear a child tobe given to another couple. That process uses a woman’s body from the start for purposes against which her own instincts, as well as our own moral judgments, rebel.

The case of Baby M in New Jersey began with a child born to Mary Beth Whitehead. She had entered into a contractual agreement with William and Elizabeth Stern to deliver the child to them. Mrs. Whitehead had become pregnant through artificial fertilization by Mr. Stern’s sperm. After the baby’s birth, Mrs. Whitehead refused to surrender it;the Sterns sued. The judge decided that the contract should be honored and the baby should go to the Sterns. On appeal, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided unanimously that the contract was invalid but gave the baby to Mr. Stern and allowed Mrs. Whitehead visiting rights.

The contract, according to the court, was void because it illegally used money to procure a child. More importantly, because no woman can truly give informed consent to relinquishing an infant she has notyet borne and seen, Mrs. Whitehead had not entered into a valid contract. At that time, and so far as I know even today, in every state but Wyoming no woman can agree to allowing her child to be adopted unless that agreement is ratified after birth.

Why, then, did the court give the child to Mr. Stern? The court did not like Mrs. Whitehead. She was poor, ill-educated, moved frequently, received public assistance, and was married to an alcohol abuser.To me, Mrs. Whitehead’s condition was largely irrelevant. The central fact was that she was the baby’s mother. The overwhelming body of biological and anthropological evidence supports the view that women become deeply attached to their children. The mother-child bond is oneof the most powerful in nature and is essential to the existence, tosay nothing of the health, of human society.

The child belonged to its mother, period. That does not mean that all forms of surrogate mothering are wrong, but it at least means that the buyer of the surrogate’s services is completely at risk. Given that risk, surrogate motherhood will never become popular, but it will occur in some cases.

I favor limiting cloning to intact, heterosexual families and placing sharp restrictions on the source of the eggs. We do not want families planning to have a movie star, basketball player, or high-energy physicist as an offspring. But I confess I am not clear as to how those limits might be drawn, and if no one can solve that puzzle, I would join Kass in banning cloning. Perhaps the best solution is a kind of screened lottery akin to what doctors performing in vitro fertilization now do with donated sperm. One can match his race or ethnicity and even select a sex, but beyond that he takes his chances.

I am persuaded that if only married couples can clone, and if we sharply limit the sources of the embryo they can implant in the woman,cloning will be quite rare. Sex is more fun than cloning, and artificial insemination and in vitro fertilization preserve the element of genetic chance that most people, I think, favor. Dr. Kass is right to stress the mystery and uncertainty of sexual union. That is why hardly any woman with a fertile husband who could obtain sperm from a donor bank will do so. Procreation is a delight.

“Cloning turns procreation into manufacture.”

WILSON BEGINS, AS I DO, with repugnance. He acknowledges his own instinctive recoil from the idea of human cloning but does not quite trust his sense of moral disquiet, and sets out to reason it away. That places the burden of proof on those who object to cloning rather than on the proponents. Worse, it requires that the reasons offered be finally acceptable to utilitarians who measure only in terms of tangible harms and benefits but who are generally blind to the deeper meanings of things.

Wilson uses the social acceptance of in vitro fertilization to rebut objections against laboratory conception of human life. But by removing human conception from the human body and by introducing new partners in reproduction (scientists and physicians), in vitro fertilization did more than supply what one or both bodies lack to produce an infant. By putting the origin of human life literally in human hands,it began a process that would lead, in practice, to the increasing technical mastery of human generation and, in thought, to the continuing erosion of respect for the mystery of sexuality and human renewal.The very existence of in vitro fertilization, notwithstanding its real benefits, becomes a justification for the next steps in turning procreation into manufacture. The arrival of cloning, far from gaining legitimacy from the precedent of in vitro fertilization, should instead awaken those who previously saw no difficulty with starting human life in Petri dishes.

Wilson does profess sympathy with those who think cloning is contrary to nature, but nature’s normative pointings have become invisibleto him. Here is probably the biggest philosophical reason for our difference.

At the center of my objection to cloning is my belief in the profundity of sex. At the center of Wilson’s is the concern that all children have parents. But the fact is we will be increasingly incapable of defending the institution of marriage and the two-parent family if we are indifferent to its natural grounding in sex. Can we ensure that all children will have two parents if we ignore the natural sexual foundations of parenthood?

Cloning is asexual reproduction. A clone is the twin rather than the offspring of its “source.” It has no parents, biologically speaking, unless its “parents” are the mother and father of the person from whom it was cloned.

Wilson is willing to define motherhood solely by the act of givingbirth. And if the clone’s birth mother is married, her husband will be, by (social) definition, its father. In that way Wilson tries to give a virtually normal biparental identity to this radically aparental child, but in doing so Wilson clings to nature and the natural facts of gestation and parturition as his anchor. For that reason he argues elsewhere for a ban on the laboratory growth of a “newborn” child from sperm to term: “Without human birth, the parents’ attitude toward the infant would be deeply compromised.”

By playing down cloning’s psychological problems of identity and individuality, Wilson is able to treat it as an innocent prospect. Butthere are unique dangers in mixing the twin relationship with the parent-child relationship. Virtually no parent is going to be able to treat a clone of himself or herself as one does a child generated by the lottery of sex. The new life will constantly be scrutinized in relation to that of the older copy. Even where undue parental expectations on the clone (say, to live the same life, only without its errors)are avoided, the child is likely to be ever a curiosity. Moreover, clones, because they are the flesh and blood (and the look-alike) of only one parent, are likely to be especially implicated in tensions between the parents. In the event of a divorce, will mommy still love the clone of daddy?

Wilson is also naive in believing that cloning can be confined to married couples seeking a remedy for childlessness. In vitro fertilization has not been so restricted; single women now regularly use artificial insemination with donor sperm. Commercial sperm banks are thriving, including those that specialize in eugenics (by providing only sperm from “geniuses”). Couples interested in cloning, especially those who have figured out the dangers of self-cloning, will certainly want to make use of “high-class” donor nuclei. Cloning provides the powerful opening salvo in the campaign to exercise control over the quality of offspring. The dangerous attitude that sees children as products for manipulation rather than gifts to be treasured will be further accelerated.

Given the fracture of the once-respected and solid bonds among sex, love, procreation, and stable marriage, and the relentless march oftechnology, it will prove impossible to preserve Wilson’s faint hopes for limiting cloning to the sphere of traditional parenthood and family life. The right to reproduce (or not) is now widely regarded as a right belonging to individuals: Who are Wilson and I to stand in the way of any unmarried woman’s desire for personal fulfillment through motherhood of a clone?

The right to reproduce is also being expanded to include a right to the type of child one wishes. Parents already exercise some choice,through genetic screening, over the quality of their children. Strange requests are already being voiced. Lobbyists for the congenitally deaf are seeking to abort non-deaf fetuses as part of their campaign to “normalize” deafness and to provide only deaf children for the deaf. Gay rights organizations urged the National Bioethics Advisory Commission to declare in favor of cloning. Some advocates even argued that, should homosexuality be shown to have a genetic basis, homosexuals would have an obligation to reproduce through cloning to preserve their kind!

Even if human cloning is rarely undertaken, a society in which it is tolerated is no longer the same society–any more than is a society that permits incest or cannibalism or slavery on even a small scale. It is a society that has forgotten how to shudder, that rationalizes away the abominable. A society that allows cloning has, whether it knows it or not, tacitly said yes to converting procreation into fabrication, and to treating our children as pure projects of our will.

Sciencing_Icons_Science SCIENCE

Sciencing_icons_biology biology, sciencing_icons_cells cells, sciencing_icons_molecular molecular, sciencing_icons_microorganisms microorganisms, sciencing_icons_genetics genetics, sciencing_icons_human body human body, sciencing_icons_ecology ecology, sciencing_icons_chemistry chemistry, sciencing_icons_atomic &amp; molecular structure atomic & molecular structure, sciencing_icons_bonds bonds, sciencing_icons_reactions reactions, sciencing_icons_stoichiometry stoichiometry, sciencing_icons_solutions solutions, sciencing_icons_acids &amp; bases acids & bases, sciencing_icons_thermodynamics thermodynamics, sciencing_icons_organic chemistry organic chemistry, sciencing_icons_physics physics, sciencing_icons_fundamentals-physics fundamentals, sciencing_icons_electronics electronics, sciencing_icons_waves waves, sciencing_icons_energy energy, sciencing_icons_fluid fluid, sciencing_icons_astronomy astronomy, sciencing_icons_geology geology, sciencing_icons_fundamentals-geology fundamentals, sciencing_icons_minerals &amp; rocks minerals & rocks, sciencing_icons_earth scructure earth structure, sciencing_icons_fossils fossils, sciencing_icons_natural disasters natural disasters, sciencing_icons_nature nature, sciencing_icons_ecosystems ecosystems, sciencing_icons_environment environment, sciencing_icons_insects insects, sciencing_icons_plants &amp; mushrooms plants & mushrooms, sciencing_icons_animals animals, sciencing_icons_math math, sciencing_icons_arithmetic arithmetic, sciencing_icons_addition &amp; subtraction addition & subtraction, sciencing_icons_multiplication &amp; division multiplication & division, sciencing_icons_decimals decimals, sciencing_icons_fractions fractions, sciencing_icons_conversions conversions, sciencing_icons_algebra algebra, sciencing_icons_working with units working with units, sciencing_icons_equations &amp; expressions equations & expressions, sciencing_icons_ratios &amp; proportions ratios & proportions, sciencing_icons_inequalities inequalities, sciencing_icons_exponents &amp; logarithms exponents & logarithms, sciencing_icons_factorization factorization, sciencing_icons_functions functions, sciencing_icons_linear equations linear equations, sciencing_icons_graphs graphs, sciencing_icons_quadratics quadratics, sciencing_icons_polynomials polynomials, sciencing_icons_geometry geometry, sciencing_icons_fundamentals-geometry fundamentals, sciencing_icons_cartesian cartesian, sciencing_icons_circles circles, sciencing_icons_solids solids, sciencing_icons_trigonometry trigonometry, sciencing_icons_probability-statistics probability & statistics, sciencing_icons_mean-median-mode mean/median/mode, sciencing_icons_independent-dependent variables independent/dependent variables, sciencing_icons_deviation deviation, sciencing_icons_correlation correlation, sciencing_icons_sampling sampling, sciencing_icons_distributions distributions, sciencing_icons_probability probability, sciencing_icons_calculus calculus, sciencing_icons_differentiation-integration differentiation/integration, sciencing_icons_application application, sciencing_icons_projects projects, sciencing_icons_news news.

• Share Tweet Email Print
• Home ⋅
• Science ⋅
• Biology ⋅
• Molecular Genetics (Biology): An Overview

The Pros & Cons of Cloning

Advantages & Disadvantages of Cloning

As far as anyone really knows, scientists have yet to clone a human being, and there are no federal laws against it in the United State. However, seven states prohibit it altogether, and 10 states only allow it for biomedical research. While more than 30 countries formally ban cloning for reproductive purposes, China, England, Israel, Singapore and Sweden do allow cloning for research, but disallow reproductive cloning.

Cloning Definition

The definition of a clone as explained by Encyclopaedia Britannica is a cell or living thing, an organism, that is "genetically identical to the original cell or organism" from which it comes. The word itself comes from the ancient Greek word "klon," which means twig. Single-cell organisms like some yeasts and bacteria naturally reproduce clones of parent cells via budding or binary fission. Individual body cells within plants and animals are clones that occur during a cell-reproduction process called mitosis.

Cloned Animals

In 2017, scientists in Shanghai succeeded in cloning two genetically identical long-tailed macaques, small brown and black monkeys with body lengths of 16 to 28 inches. The last successful cloning of a primate was in 1998, but scientists have also cloned about 20 different types of animals including dogs, pigs, frogs, mice, cows and rabbits since the first cloned animal in 1996.

The First Cloned Animal: Dolly the Sheep

The first successful animal cloning occurred over 22 years ago, after a Scottish Blackface sheep surrogate mother gave birth to Dolly on July 5, 1996, at the Roslin Institute, part of the University of Edinburgh. Cloned from a six-year-old Dorset sheep, scientists analyzed her DNA at her first birthday and discovered that the telomeres at the end of her DNA strands (think eraser on a pencil head) were shorter that they should be for her age. As animals and humans age, these telomeres become shorter. The average age for sheep runs between six to 12 years. Dolly died when she was six, and though she had shortened telomeres, she lived an average life and produced multiple offspring through natural methods, but she also developed diseases in her later years.

Human Cloning Pros and Cons

The pros or advantages of human cloning include:

• ​ Infertility: ​ Infertile people or same-sex couples could have children made from cloned cells.
• ​ Organ replacement: ​ A clone, like in the movie, "The Island," could be a source for transplant organs or tissue. (There are ethical issues that arise from this, however.)
• ​ Genetic research: ​ Cell cloning could assist scientists in gene editing and research.
• ​ Selective human traits: ​ After editing or removing bad genes, cloning could lead engineered humans for specific traits.
• ​ Human development: ​ Cloning could enhance and advance human development.

The cons or disadvantages of human cloning raise moral, ethical and safety issues:

• ​ Reproductive cloning: ​ The negatives of human cloning including the making of designer babies.
• ​ Human cloning: ​ Could be a violation of the clone's individual human rights.
• ​ Embryonic cloning: ​ Cellular degradation occurs when too many clones are made from embryos.
• ​ Unique identities: ​ Cloning raises the question of a moral or human right to an exclusive identity.
• ​ Societal impacts: ​ Human cloning could produce psychological distress for the clone and society.

Effects of Cloning

While the purpose of cloning is to create an exact replica – if scientists cloned a human that appears identical to the original – it raises the questions as to whether the cloned human is an individual separate from the original and is due the same rights as any other human. Human cloning research and techniques could subject the clone to unacceptable risks such as a shortened life, bad health or other unknown problems. In the end, legalizing cloning on a wide-scale basis could lead to a disrespect for human life and the individual worth of a person, which might ultimately diminish all humans in the end.

Related Articles

Who invented cloning & when, gene editing is not about making designer babies, what makes dna fingerprinting unique, pros & cons of cloning plants & animals, pros and cons of recombinant dna technology, ethics research paper topics, a list of five characteristics of chromosomes, the importance of studying human dna genetics, how to write a notation of a karyotype, when is a mutation in a dna molecule passed to offspring, difference between recombinant dna & genetic engineering, how do i compare frankenstein & cloning, what are the differences between pcr and cloning, the production of recombinant human growth hormones..., what is embryo cloning, four major types of chromosomes, the differences in fraternal & paternal twins, recombinant dna technology for vaccine development, how are genes on sex chromosomes inherited.

• CNN: Monkey See, Monkey 2: Scientists Clone Monkeys Using Technique That Created Dolly the Sheep
• Encyclopaedia Britannica: Macaque
• The University of Edinburgh: The Life of Dolly
• North Carolina State Extension: Sheep Facts
• Georgetown University: Cloning Human Beings
• Johns Hopkins University: Ask an Expert: How Close Are We to Cloning Humans?
• The New Atlantis: Appendix: State Laws on Human Cloning
• Encyclopaedia Britannica: Clone

About the Author

As a journalist and editor for several years, Laurie Brenner has covered many topics in her writings, but science is one of her first loves. Her stint as Manager of the California State Mining and Mineral Museum in California's gold country served to deepen her interest in science which she now fulfills by writing for online science websites. Brenner is also a published sci-fi author. She graduated from San Diego's Coleman College in 1972.

Find Your Next Great Science Fair Project! GO

Ethical Issues in Health Care

An emory wordpress site for philosophy 316, kass’s argument against cloning.

Leon Kass argues in the article “Why we should ban the cloning of humans: the wisdom of repugnance” that we need to enact a universal ban on cloning, as cloning is an insult to both morality and human dignity.  What I found so interesting about Kass’ argument was that he describes not only to the logical but also the emotional consequences of cloning.  Kass uses the feeling of repugnance to do just this.

The Process of Cloning:

Cloning is the process of creating a cell, cell product, or organism that is genetically identical to the unit from which it was derived. The nucleus of a mature and unfertilized egg is removed and replaced with a nucleus obtained from a specialized cell of an adult organism, which contains almost all the hereditary material.  While experts make it clear that cloning is not like Xeroxing, due to differences in environment and circumstances, the clone with share the same genome as the donor.

Argument of Revulsion

Kass argues that there is a reason most people feel deep revulsion to the idea of cloning human beings, a feeling similar to the one we get when considering cannibalism or incest.  He describes potential situations that could arise in the future if cloning is allowed in order to bring about disgust and emotional fears in readers such as: the mass production of identical human beings, women giving birth to and rearing a genetic copy of herself or someone in the family, replacing someone who has died with an exact copy, the narcissism of those who clone themselves, and the hubris required to control life and control destiny allowing man to play God in a way that is not natural.  Kass understands that revulsion is not entirely a valid argument, since there are plenty of examples of things that our ancestors would have been repulsed now that we see perfectly normal. However, he describes repugnance as the emotional expression of deep wisdom; wisdom beyond reason’s power to fully articulate.

Cloning Goes Against the Natural:

While I thought the emotional argument Kass posed was strong, he does not leave it to stand-alone.  He supports his argument by providing evidence as to why cloning would be damaging to the children, the family dynamic, and the process of human procreation. Kass argues that sexual reproduction is established by nature and is a process that should not be influenced by human design. He worries that cloning threatens confusion of identity and individuality and that the cloning of human beings represents a giant step toward transforming procreation into manufacture, straying from the natural and pushing children to become products of human will and design rather than a result of a loving family.

Reflecting on Kass’s Argument:

I can see where this argument for the need to maintain a traditional family and reproduction system may not appeal to some people, however I agree with his desire to maintain the natural cycle of birth, procreation, and death. I think Kass does a good job of appealing to both the emotions and logic of readers and was effective in convincing me that cloning humans is something that needs to be banned worldwide.

Sources: Kass, Leon R. “Why We Should Ban the Cloning of Humans: The Wisdom of Repugnance.”  Arguing about Bioethics . London: Routledge, 2012. N. pag. Print.

9 thoughts on “ Kass’s Argument Against Cloning ”

In continuation of what you have already stated, have you thought about how genetically cloning a person can lead to new hereditary disease through changes in nucleotide sequences which often occur when attempting to duplicate DNA? A single change in a nucleotide in various genes can cause cancer or prevent a person from mentally or physically developing properly. Perhaps we are getting to the point where minimal risk to DNA mutations during this process, but is it really worth the risk? And what happens when clones begin to clone themselves? This can significantly increase the risk for producing mutations.

Your blog concludes that you agree with Kass’s argument about the banning of human cloning, but I wondered what was your take on his banning of the cloning of human embryos for strictly scientific purposes. Kass brings this up towards the end of his article and concludes that in order to successfully ban human cloning, we must also ban the cloning of human embryos. I think this is a crucial part of his argumentation because for me, personally, it changed my opinion on whether or not I agreed with his initial point that human cloning should be banned. If we take into consideration Kass’s argument that successful banning of human cloning must include a ban on cloning embryos for strictly scientific purposes, new moral implications come into play. Without this research, we could lose important information that can save future lives. Additionally, some of his earlier arguments, such as the disruption of family dynamics is irrelevant to this type of cloning. It would have been interesting to see what your take on this point was.

I almost never comment, but after looking at some of the remarks on this page Kass

I appreciate the process of cloning which it was derived.. thanks for sharing this informative site with me…

It’s remarkable in favor of me to have a website, which is helpful in favor of my know-how. thanks admin

Very interesting info!Perfect just what I was looking for!

Great write-up, I’m regular visitor of one’s site, maintain up the excellent operate, and It is going to be a regular visitor for a lengthy time.

Looking for hacking games? Check out Cheat Engine 6.4 Apk to hack free android and PC Games

This web page is actually a walk-through for all of the internet it suited you concerning this and didn’t know who ought to. Glimpse here, and you’ll definitely discover it.

Comments are closed.

Animal Cloning Benefits and Controversies Essay

Introduction, cloning technology, success of animal cloning, motivations for animal cloning, arguments against animal cloning, suggestions, works cited.

Animal cloning is the generation of one or more animals from body cells of another animal without involving sexual aspects of reproduction (Fairbanks 27).

The members of each clone have similar genetic patterns to the donor cell from which they are derived. Since the cloning of the first animal, animal cloning has emerged as an important topic in the society and it forms a major discourse in ethical and moral discussions. Studies into animal cloning have diversified and have been extended into various fields, with major breakthroughs being reported in the biotechnology, pharmaceutical and agricultural fields (Fairbanks 33).

Through cloning, transgenic animals have been created that have the potential to produce novel human therapeutic molecules, thus helping in treating some diseases that previously were incurable (McLaren 1775). Animal cloning promises to revolutionize food production, with the potential of producing cattle, sheep, pigs, and other animals with superior quality and more resistant to diseases. This is bound to increase food availability (Polejaeva et al. 87).

Animal cloning proponents are of the opinion that cloning of animals will see an increase in food production globally. Moreover, the quality of food produced will increase and novel cures for diseases will result from pursuance of animal cloning. This is meant to prolong human life. Further, animal cloning is considered as significant in enhancing the comprehension of human beings and nature; therefore, it is crucial to the advancement of scientific goals (Hare 271).

In spite of the potential benefits, cloning of animals raises issues that are wide in scope, extending beyond the question of food safety to include ethical and moral qualms (Deane-Drummond 25). This essay seeks to explore the benefits and controversies of animal cloning. The essay will also emphasize on my position that animal cloning should not be allowed due to the fact that it is not natural. Furthermore, it goes against all of my religious beliefs.

No matter what the benefits are, cloning animals will only lead to further experimentation and probably lead to cloning humans someday. I will also propose a new piece of legislation making it mandatory to label all products that come from cloned animals, such as meat and dairy. Furthermore the legislation should dictate rules and regulations for quality control and testing of cloned animal products.

The process of cloning involves isolation of a single body cell from a donor organism, and then transferring its nucleus into an unfertilized egg that does not have a nucleus using a special needle.

The “nucleus of the body cell substitutes for the normal combination of egg and spermatozoon, thus allowing the egg cytoplasm containing the transplanted nucleus to develop into the same kind of organism as that from which the donor nucleus was obtained” (Hare 271). Cloning, therefore, enables the mass production of artificial life and liberalizes the field of genetic engineering into huge commercial possibilities.

When cloning involves embryonic cells, the success rate of the procedure is relatively high, exceeding 50 percent (Hare 272). However, the use of adult cells is associated with a high failure rate and close to 98 percent of cloning involving adult cells develop abnormally or die at various stages of development (Thompson 199).

This implies that even the success of these experiments when carried out on adult humans will result into many abnormalities or deaths (McLaren 1778). This is has been an area of major concern particularly to the scientists involved because of the related ethical issues.

Available evidence suggests that animal cloning is associated with increased frequencies of miscarriages, stillbirths, genetic disorders and lifelong abnormalities, indicating that the efficiency of this process is very low (Thompson 203). This inefficiency of animal cloning depicts the consequences the animals have to experience, especially the donor and surrogate animals where surgery has to be performed to extract the cells of interest and implant the embryos (Thompson 203).

The major motive behind the cloning technique is for biomedical benefits. Supporters of this technology argue that it presents prospects of genetically modifying animals so that their cells and organs can be transplanted into humans to replace diseased ones (Hare 272).

Genetic engineering is deemed to bring success in transplantation due to the fact that animal cells can be made to overcome the risk of rejection or reducing the risk thereof. Animal cloning could also make available novel therapies for many genetic diseases that are currently incurable, for example Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s and Huntington’s diseases (Scott and Weissman 27).

Another reason that is advanced in support of animal cloning is the improvement of food production; therefore, alleviating hunger, malnutrition and suffering. Animal cloning ensures that the world will contain a rich supply of animals to clone, thus ensuring that there is constant food supply (Thompson 200).

Some proponents of animal cloning cite the high demand for animal food products in comparison to the low supply. It is evident that animal cloning will lead to the realization of animals that can mature earlier and those with qualities that are preferred by farmers. This supplements the traditional sexual reproduction methods that are slower and do not meet the population demands (Scott and Weissman 28).

Given the diverse rationales for animal cloning, the ethical issues raised are complex in scope and involves ethical issues touching on religion, animal welfare, safety, and environmental aspects. From the religious perspective, cloning is considered as playing God.

Changing the factors that define life and death is usurping the divine prerogative as it is only God who has the power to create a living creature (Deane-Drummond 63). Cloning is, therefore, tantamount to blasphemy from the Catholic and other churches’ perspective and the work of creation as originally intended should not be interfered with.

I support this suggestion and strongly agree that animal cloning is challenging the authority of the supreme God by presuming to exercise the rights that belong to the creator. Therefore, regardless of the consequences associated with cloning, the most important concern is that it violates a significant moral duty. It cannot be argued that animal cloning is one way of facilitating the creation of life, but instead it is designing life.

Pursuing animal cloning as a way of improving food production and quality carries a high risk of contaminating the food supply with potentially harmful products. There is also a greater risk that this type of technology cannot be adequately regulated and it may spurn out of control, resulting into devastating environmental consequences on biodiversity and human life (Deane-Drummond 104).

Animal cloning has rapidly increased in the country, and large corporations have adopted a worrying trend of employing cloning in food supply production with little government regulation. Cloned foods have gained entry into the food supply when little studies have been performed to examine possible hazards and risks and the public possess little information concerning cloned foods (Thompson 212).

Advancing animal cloning in the context of biomedical research is also a dangerous approach. There is a likelihood of emergence of new zoonotic diseases due to cloning of animals with the intention of using their organs for transplant purposes (Polejaeva et al. 88). Further, animal cloning is likely to shift biomedical research from promotion of preventive medicine and finding means to encourage more organ donation to xenotransplantation by the use of animal organs (Fiester 334).

This presents a very dangerous alternative because of the possibility of animal pathogens crossing into the human population, resulting into emergence of new plagues and diseases. Another area of concern in using animal cloning technology in biomedical research is the complexity and high rate it has impacted the field of genetics.

At this rate, science is moving towards setting a precedence of creating new transgenic species and rushing toward a posthuman culture (Fairbanks 112). There will be a new breed of humans resulting from biological manipulations using technology. This will lead to genes being crossed between various species. This technology can be subject to exploitation, leading to breeding of new eugenics with unknown consequences.

Cloning of animals is contrary to natural evolution and traditional methods of animal breeding. This biotechnology method manipulates genes instead of the whole organism. The technology advances at unprecedented rates, indicating the drastic rate that this technology could redesign the human body and genome.

It is now possible to carry out studies and make money out of the knowledge on gene manipulation in animals. This technology turns animals into objects that carry genetic information to be manipulated through editing, transposing and copying. The animals are reduced to fragments of genetic information instead of whole organisms in order to conform to the market values. Furthermore, animal cloning turns them into instruments at human disposal for use for his/her own benefits (Deane-Drummond 109).

Animal cloning is a cruel method of curing diseases, in spite of the prospective benefits that may be made possible through this technology. Behind these benefits, animal cloning is advanced for commercial conveniences and only acts as a mechanism for commodification of animals (Thompson 208). This is an indicator of how much animal life has been trivialized and its dignity trashed upon.

Animal cloning is an unnatural process since it is generally more involving and interferes with the animals’ reproductive performance compared to the conventional means of production. Culturing of cloned embryos in vitro has been shown to stress the normal cell development process, resulting into physiological abnormalities. These are mostly manifested as over-sized animals and are associated with an increased fetal death rate (Fairbanks 126).

In some cases, these physiological abnormalities of cloned animals persist into adulthood, further perpetuating animal welfare concerns as these animals are more susceptible to diseases than non-cloned animals (Fairbanks 126). Cloning animals, especially using somatic cells, increases the likelihood of mutations whose consequences are not predictable, thus raising welfare issues as a result of genetic differences between cloned and non-cloned animals.

Furthermore, animal cloning may likely result into deleterious effects in the animal population and impact the environment negatively. This is because of the possibility of the cloned animals breeding with non-clones or as a result of an unanticipated production of some proteins that may have ramifications to the entire ecosystem (Riddle 113).

There is a potential of turning animals into objects and commodities through animal cloning (Thompson 123). This is because this technology subjects living animals into machine status that can be manufactured by human. This manipulation of animals also tends to exacerbate animal welfare issues since this procedure predisposes them into suffering due to diseases and abnormalities. Animal cloning turns human beings into insensitive creatures that are alienated to the suffering of other creatures.

Cloning of animals has reduced life to a status where it can be created and redesigned in a petri dish and genetic patterns can be modified like machines, making it difficult to differentiate between natural and artificial. The techniques that are employed in this process challenge the existing conceptualization of life and death, subsequently demanding a rethinking of the basic perceptions of ethics and moral principles (Fiester 335).

Animal cloning also does not arguer well environmentally since it presents a threat to the diversity of life (Fairbanks 138). Life diversity can only exist if natural selection is allowed to take place and man does not interfere with breeding by introducing artificial ways of producing organisms. Animal cloning essentially prevents natural selection and will ultimately alter evolution, leading to permanent loss of genetic diversity.

Fiester (337) hypothesizes that animal cloning poses negative consequences to the environment and may equally affect human beings negatively. In particular, cloning of extinct and endangered species and cloning of livestock may have impacts on the ecosystem as the clones interact in the environment. This is because disruption of the ecosystem is known to cause havoc on the life existing in a particular ecosystem (Fiester 337).

Another major ethical issue is that the animal cloning technology is the same one that can be employed in cloning human beings or generating transgenic organisms, whose implication may have devastating consequences as it will represent a dangerous transgression of technology. Adopting this technology threatens the society as it is bound to create a slippery slope of reproduction (Scott and Weissman 27).

Once animal cloning experiments are perfected, it will be only a matter of a short period before the same technology is transferred into human. It has already been suggested that scientists are exploring human reproductive cloning, thus demonstrating that animal cloning just provides a blueprint for transferring the technology into human studies (Riddle 115). It is clear that animal cloning forms the basis upon which cloning will be extended to humans.

Furthermore, it is common knowledge that genetic engineering and cloning technologies were developed for commercial purposes and the potential of the biotechnology companies reaping huge profits only means that all natural life forms, such as microorganisms, animals and human beings are liable to be turned into objects through genetic reconstruction (Scott and Weissman 27).

Since scientific processes usually first target objects of nature and animals, the use of animals for cloning is only an analytic gaze before focus shifts into cloning human beings. The cloning procedure has been successful in most animals to which it has been employed and is widely acknowledged that it can be replicated in humans successfully (Thompson 213).

Human cloning would in turn have implications on the philosophical perceptions of man, whose life begins at conception resulting into formation of an embryo regardless of whether it is in a petri dish. The essence of life must involve sexual reproduction. Animal cloning contravenes this as it involves mixing of genetic information from two individuals to create variation.

It should be acknowledged that technology is not self-sufficient since it is strongly embedded in social practices, identities, culture, and institutions. This calls for the authorities to consider the different perspectives of all the stakeholders regarding the risks and the manner in which they should be regulated, besides addressing all relevant factors (Simini 1366).

In the midst of the novel advances that are currently transforming the world, it is of great importance to recognize human value, appreciate and safeguard them in light of man’s ever anxious nature to set aside the moral fabrics for the opportunity of scientific advancement.

I am of the opinion that all consumers ought to be empowered with information that would help them make informed choices of products that are realized through cloning. This is because animal cloning has advanced immensely and stores and shelves are filled with foods whose origin, whether organic or cloned, cannot be established.

Given the conflicting attitudes towards cloning of animals, the government needs to enforce regulations that require cloned food products to be clearly labeled as such. Failure to describe that a food comes from a cloned animal or its progeny arguably creates a mislabeling of the food due to its mis-description (Scott and Weissman 29). It is also important that the government shifts its focus from economic considerations only to include a precautionary approach.

This will ensure that scientific data is moderated in situations where scientific uncertainty exists by evaluating non-scientific conceptions of risk. An approach that replicates the one in place for genetically modified organisms requiring pre-market authorization and compulsory labeling is required in the regulation of cloned foods in order to address the safety concerns, long-term issues, consumer worries, and animal health and welfare issues.

Advances in biotechnology can have different implications, some of which are beneficial while others are destructive. Animal cloning is one such field of biotechnology that continues to elicit mixed perspectives that pose significant challenges. While animal cloning presents many opportunities, the process is still not efficient since very few of the embryos live to maturity while most suffer from many physiological abnormalities.

This raises issues involving human welfare and ethics. Animal cloning also presents some consequential effects on food safety, thereby implying the need for regulatory policies. It is argued that the issues that are raised concerning cloning ought to be recognized and attended to by the government.

Animal cloning will, therefore, continue to be contested because of the scientific uncertainties surrounding them, the potential risks they raise and the ethical issues thereof. The appropriate approach at present is the formulation of regulatory policies that will make it mandatory to label all products that come from cloned animals, such as meat and dairy.

Labeling will help consumers make informed choices of the foods they buy since it is evident that cloned food products have already permeated the market. Food safety is only one of the many concerns that consumers have regarding animal cloning, and labels are necessary to give the consumers the information they require to make decisions that are appropriate for them.

Deane-Drummond, Celia. The Ethics of Nature . Malden, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2008. Print.

Fairbanks, Stephen. Cloning: Chronology, Abstracts, and Guide to Books . New York, NY: Nova Publishers, 2004. Print.

Fiester, Autmin. “Ethical Issues in Animal Cloning.” Perspect Biol Med 48.3 (2005): 328-43. Print.

Hare, Doug. “What of Animal Cloning.” Can Vet J . 44.4 (2003): 271-272. Print.

McLaren, Anne. “Cloning: Pathways To A Pluripotent Future.” Science 288.5472 (2000): 1775-1780. Print.

Polejaeva, Irina A. Chen, Shu-Hung Vaught, Todd D. Page, Raymond L. Mullins, June Ball, Suyapa Dai, Yifan Boone, Jeremy Walker, Shawn Ayares, David L. Colman, Alan Campbell, and Keith H.S. “Cloned Pigs Produced By Nuclear Transfer From Adult Somatic Cells.” Nature 407.6800 (2000): 86-90. Print.

Riddle, Brown. “Brave New Beef: Animal Cloning and its Impacts.” Brown Journal of World Affairs 14.1 (2007): 111-119. Print.

Scott, Christopher, and Weissman, Irving. Cloning, in From Birth to Death and Bench to Clinic: The Hastings Center Bioethics Briefing Book for Journalists, Policymakers, and Campaigns . Garrison, NY: The Hastings Center (2008): 25-30. Print.

Simini, Bruno. “Italian Scientist Investigated After Animal Cloning Experiment.” Lancet 354.9187 (1999): 1365-1365. Print.

Thompson, Paul. “Ethical issues in Livestock Cloning.” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 11.3 (1999): 197-217. Print.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2020, January 12). Animal Cloning Benefits and Controversies. https://ivypanda.com/essays/animal-cloning/

"Animal Cloning Benefits and Controversies." IvyPanda , 12 Jan. 2020, ivypanda.com/essays/animal-cloning/.

IvyPanda . (2020) 'Animal Cloning Benefits and Controversies'. 12 January.

IvyPanda . 2020. "Animal Cloning Benefits and Controversies." January 12, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/animal-cloning/.

1. IvyPanda . "Animal Cloning Benefits and Controversies." January 12, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/animal-cloning/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Animal Cloning Benefits and Controversies." January 12, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/animal-cloning/.

• Ethics of Cloning
• The New Advancements in Cloning and the Ethical Debate Surrounding It
• Animal Cloning and Engineering
• The Cloning Controversy
• Human and Animal Production Cloning Concepts
• Understanding the Human Cloning Concept
• Cloning in Terms of Society and Theology
• Animal and Reproductive Cloning: Current Events
• Whether or Not Human Cloning Should Be Allowed
• The Human Cloning Debates
• Experimentation on Animals
• Gender Imbalance in higher education
• Modern-Day Heroes in Society
• History of Patriarchy Development from the Past to Modern Days
• Interpersonal and Intercultural Communication in the UAE

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Cloning Argumentative Essay

Related Papers

Advances in Management Applied Economics

Bahaudin Mujtaba

Ebenezer Gangmei

Gail Javitt

Darryl R Macer , Brendan Tobin , Chamu Kuppuswamy

Katrien Devolder , Julian Savulescu

The United Nations Declaration on Human Cloning On March 8, 2005, the General Assembly adopted the United Nations Declaration on Human Cloning in which Member States are called upon to: a) protect adequately human life in the application of life sciences b) prohibit all forms of human cloning inasmuch as they are incompatible with human dignity and the protection of human life c) prohibit the application of genetic engineering techniques that may be contrary to human dignity d) prevent the exploitation of women in the application of life sciences e) adopt and implement national legislation to bring into effect paragraphs a to d f) take into account the pressing global issues such as HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria, which affect in particular the developing countries. We will argue that cloning research does not exploit women (as d implies) and does address global health problems (not as f implies). More importantly, we will argue that it is immoral to prohibit all forms of cloning (as b suggests) and that national legislation is required to ban reproductive cloning but not therapeutic cloning (and that e is too broad). This declaration fails to take account of new research into cloning and of the distinction between cloning research for the purposes of regenerative medicine (self-transplantation) and cloning research for the purposes of developing what we call cellular models of human disease. This second application is immune to virtually all objections to cloning research.2 The United Nations should withdraw its unethical Declaration on Human Cloning. The Declaration is as immoral as it is lethal, or so we shall argue.

Alyssa Alexis Ramos

OF¬ SCIENCE¬ AND¬ TECHNOLOGY

Henk ten Have

Science and Engineering Ethics

Guido Van Steendam

RELATED PAPERS

Guido Van Steendam , Judit Sandor , Josef Kuře

MULTIDISCIPLINARY AP​P​ROACHES TO THE HUMAN CLONING

Cihan GOKDEMIR

Ayah Shakhtour

Ashish Kumar

Nursing Ethics

Olga Savvina

Katrien Devolder

grace ijoma

MD.ANSAR ALI

Rizqi Zufar Rizaldy

Prem Chandrakar

Dónal O’Mathúna

Trends in biotechnology

Wilfried Kues

Darryl R Macer , Somparn Promta , Sergio Romeo , Pahol Kosiyachinda , Brigitte E . S Jansen

Nature Reviews Genetics

Darryl R Macer

Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization

Franco Furger , Francis. Fukuyama

Bangladesh Journal of Medical Science

rusli nordin

Olli-Pekka Moisio , Juha Suoranta

Mandeep Kaur

New Genetics and Society

Eric Jensen

The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics

Rosario Isasi

Jeorgene Biares

Byron Kaldis

Angela López

IJHCS IJHCS

Dr. Tekalign Tadesse , Deme Koricho

Julian Savulescu

Electronic Journal of Biotechnology

Hugo Montaldo

Marcellius Ari Christy

MaLik SohaiL Nawaz

Differentiation

Karl Illmensee

jonathansphilosophy.webs.com

Julian Okeke

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

We use cookies to enhance our website for you. Proceed if you agree to this policy or learn more about it.

• Essay Database >
• Essay Examples >
• Essays Topics >
• Essay on Life

Argumentative Essay On Should Human Cloning Be Legal

Type of paper: Argumentative Essay

Topic: Life , Pregnancy , Health , Family , Childhood , Abortion , Children , Medicine

Words: 2750

Published: 11/11/2019

ORDER PAPER LIKE THIS

Introduction

Human cloning is the creation of identical human being in the laboratory. It is an artificial process and is conducted with stem cell research and biotechnology. Reproductive cloning would give rise to human clones. Animal cloning is practiced from past few years and with the birth of Dolly, the sheep cloning has become the prime research area of many scientists. The reproductive cloning is dealing with many controversial issues and is banned in several countries including United States. The discussion on should human cloning be legalized or banned is a discussion issue among the bio-research communities and there are many views in favor and in against of it. Every coin has two sides, similarly human cloning has some potential benefits and disadvantages for entire human race. The decision of legalizing the human cloning is a crucial one and the critical evaluation of the disadvantages would demonstrate the shortcomings of human cloning.

I: Human Cloning should not be legalized

Human cloning should not be legalized and the same can be supported through psychological reasons, physiological reasons, ethical reasons, environmental reasons, social reasons, physical reasons and legal issues which shall be faced by the entire human race if the cloning is legalized. As evident, few scientists are eager to initiate experiment of human cloning and once legalized, human cloning would go full fledged into testing leading to killing of dozens of embryo daily.

If human cloning is legalized and practiced regularly, soon the hospitals will be full of babies with genetic birth defects. The babies will be dependent on respirators as their lungs and heart will be deformed or malfunctioning. Brain damage would be a common occurrence in babies and the ability to suckle will not be present in babies and they would require to be fed with feeding tubes. If not these, then infants will have severe physical deformity. The infants who will have normal physical appearance may suffer from autism, epilepsy or other genetic abnormality. As per Gerald Schatten, vice chairman of gynecology, obstetrics and reproductive sciences at University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine “All of the data on animal cloning demonstrates exceptionally high rates of fetal loss, abortion (and) neonatal deaths, and many cloned animals have devastating birth defects," when scientists work with animals for cloning and as a result of experiment, if the animal infant is abnormal scientists euthanize the infant, however the supporters of human cloning has to explain their willingness to follow the same method for human infants born as a resultant of cloning experiment.

Moreover, the scientists who are favoring human cloning, their readiness for the same is questionable. The strong argument against the human cloning is that the reprogramming which is required for successful creation of embryo is still under research. For animal cloning, scientists insert the adult cell DNA into dozens of eggs and give electricity shocks to initiate the cell division mandatory for embryo creation. Out of all the eggs made to go through this process, at the most only 2 per cent gives rise to an embryo and out of them only 10 to 15 per cent are normal. Hence, as evident, the ratio of successful and healthy live infant is minuscule. Moreover, cloning can make the human gene pool defective and produce irreversible negative effects on the genetic make-up of cells.

The environmentalists are also opposing human cloning as the genetic engineering has already demonstrated some major side-effects on the evolution and sustenance of some animal species like the impact of genetic modification of BT corn on monarch butterfly. Similarly the side effects of human cloning on human race should also be simulated in detail, not only for short term but also for the hundreds of years to come.

It is obvious that the human cloning will definitely have an impact on human race and it could be negative as well. It can also be foreseen that once scientists acquire the skill to clone successfully, the value of life and ecosystem would deteriorate quickly and the need to preserve the animal species and humans would be eliminated. This would disturb the ecosystem and cloning, by no means provides the assurance of sustenance of ecosystem and survival of diverse species.

Ethically, the clones who will be produced would be an individual with independent thinking and feelings; however, it contrasts with the purpose of producing the clones. The clones would be bought into existence so that they can donate their organs or replace a lost person, hence merely to serve a need. This process would not respect the emotions of clone and the concerned parents or relatives will not regard the clone as a living individual. There would be utter confusion and on moral grounds, the clones would only be created to fulfill the need which would be contrary to be created for love.

Human cloning would also enable the humans to predetermine the traits they prefer in the offspring and this would lead to degeneration of family life and individuality of offspring. The traits which shall not be selected for long will become extinct and prevalent in today’s world; the offspring would also be accorded qualities as per the theme of day. This may sound to be an exaggerated version of the social issues raised by cloning, however this could prove to be true as well. Children from cloning would evolve and acquire traits as per parents preference and would become what their parents envisage them to be, in a way becoming the robots with no individual desire and goals of life. This would lead to a chain of desires which shall be forced on succeeding generation by the preceding generation.

The ban on human cloning also has a religious perspective. It is being believed by many that human life is a divine creation and all the humans are to be born in natural way and not created through some scientific process. Once the life is started to be generated in laboratories, the value which is being attached to life by humans and law and order would diminish. Taking one’s life would no longer considered be a crime and the criminal might escape the law by merely paying for the clone creation.

Part II: Human Cloning should be legalized

Human cloning is a phenomenon which has the power to change the destiny of every single human being living. The feeling of comfort spreads all over when there is possibility of several organ donors and no human shall die again from kidney failure. Cancer, the most dreaded disease which is still considered as untreatable becomes curable because there are many people around on whom the experiments can be conducted to search for the cure of cancer. These people who become the object of experiments are the clones of humans who are created to serve the requirement of being a donor or a test object. Human cloning would give scientists the full realm to free entire human race of all diseases and weaknesses, to unravel the mystery of DNA and other cellular mechanisms due to availability of ample objects for experimentation. This procedure would enhance the quality of life of humans. Human cloning is expected to pave way for many major medical breakthroughs. The embryos which will be used as testing object will be a living specimen and would have been created for testing and experimentation purpose only. It is not unethical to use live embryos for testing purpose as it would not involve the degeneration of human life. The value of human life remains same always and in order to enhance the quality of life and to cure people from deadly crippling diseases, these embryos would be used. The emotional attachment to these lives and the ban on human cloning on the ground of unethical killing of human lives is unjustified and just a hurdle in the development for the betterment of human life [ CITATION Far10 \l 1033 ]. Also, the people who consider human cloning unethical and wrong on moral grounds should also express same views on abortions and termination of pregnancy. Human cloning is an extension of stem cell research and is totally committed to be carried on under the realms of ethics.

Human cloning would also assist people who are victim of medical tragedies like an individual requiring a kidney to survive, physical abnormality which requires a breakthrough treatment and many more[ CITATION Amy99 \l 1033 ]. All these health condition can be treated through the advancement by human cloning. It would serve to make life better of humans. The valuable information which would be obtained from the cell pool of such specimens would provide immense benefits to humans to fight against the deadly diseases. Also, when human cloning is an answer to the incurable diseases, why should the governments ban it on the pretext of it being unsafe and unethical. Infertility issues can also be treated with human cloning and human cloning would emerge as blessing for childless parents as they can have children from cloning[ CITATION Dan \l 1033 ]. In vitro fertilization is not always successful and human cloning has brighter chances of creating children. In vitro fertilization is also a way of creating child in laboratory and still, not many people are objecting to it. The embryo created by human cloning would be with the consent of parents and would be done only when the technology is so advanced that the infant produced is free of abnormalities. Also, with the help of technology, the abnormality in developing embryo can be detected and the development of those embryos can be hindered, this would ensure that babies are not born with abnormalities and only the perfect babies are born.

With the development of human cloning, the side effects of human cloning on environment would also disappear as the human clones cannot be assumed to have any side effect on the ecosystem. On the contrary, the advancement in cloning technology would enable humans to revive the species on the verge of extinction and would re-establish the balance of ecosystem. The value of human life can never diminish as even the clone of the person would not be identical to the person in thought process and application of mind. Due to this, the clone can’t serve as a replacement and has to be regarded as a separate individual.

Also, our developed society is prepared to address the issues raised by the clones and to protect their rights. Though clones are to be created on the need purpose, it would entirely be the decision of clone to serve that purpose or not. The clones would also have the life and liberty equal to humans and they would not be servile to humans. Every life is divine and even the cloned human would also be god’s creation as it would be a resultant of reproduction only. In spite of option of cloning available, it is believed that the natural process of reproduction and birth of children would prevail and cloning would be considered as an option in required critical cases only. Hence, it is no way a threat to human existence and we ought to take it as a scientific process committed to improve the quality of human life.

The strongest argument given in favor of human cloning is that the infertile couple can have the child through human cloning. This does not justifies the human cloning as there are already several ways through which an infertile couple can have child. The existing methods have proven to be a success and also, this statement is not a grave situation for which human cloning can be justified to be legalized. Cloning of a lost child of parents would only prove to be an emotional trauma for parents as the child, though being identical physically to their child, would be a different individual altogether. The parents would have to adjust to the new requirements of their cloned child and this could lead to an emotional mess.

There are diseases which are far more severe that being infertile like cancer and Down’s syndrome and though stated that human cloning would be able to give breakthrough solutions to cure these diseases, the same has not been proven yet by any research. Presently, the cures of these diseases are also being investigated and human cloning may not be an immediate success [ CITATION GJA98 \l 1033 ]. The embryos which are targeted to be used as object of test are also living and possess the capability to develop in a perfect baby, given an opportunity. This would be similar to using a human baby for test purpose. When the killing of human baby for test purpose is considered unethical, the killing of human clone baby would also be unethical. The reason of the cloned baby and embryo being in abundance does not make the testing on embryos ethical [ CITATION LAn98 \l 1033 ].

The babies developed through cloning technique when identified with fatal abnormalities would be discarded or euthanized like animal babies and the parents would not have any objection to this and also, the law would permit for this does not seems to be a feasible and agreeable statement. The babies with fatal abnormalities when born would be with their parents and would cause much more emotional pain than of being childless and infertile.

The environmentalists are correct in their opinion that human cloning would disturb the ecosystem as the population would increase comprising of clones also which would be produced for every possible reason and either government has to intervene to regulate the process of creation of human cloning or else it would be exploited so much that every single individual would have one clone. For example, human clone is created for kidney and kidneys from human clone would be easily available. Keeping aside the natural reasons of kidney failure, kidney failure due to liquor consumption is almost 40 per cent. Consider the human nature, once a person is aware that the kidney is easily replaceable, the value attached to kidney deteriorates and the liquor consumption would increase. Hence, easy availability of organs and easy replacement of person would diminish the value attached to human life.

The rights of the human clones created are also a concern as they would be created on a need basis and their fate post realization of need from them is not clear. Either once created, they would be treated as donor of every singly organ which can be utilized by humans or they will be forced to live without that organ throughout their life or they will be euthanized once they serve the need. All the three options stated above are completely unethical and dreadful. It would be hard for governments to establish a balance between rights of clone and their purpose of creation. Saving them from donating the organs or acting as replacement or being a object for experiments would defeat the purpose of human cloning and letting them be used as only the experimentation object would be inhuman and unethical [ CITATION PAB99 \l 1033 ]

Human cloning though is a gateway to immense opportunities for betterment of humans; it also poses some challenges for human race. The solution of these challenges is required to be addressed before human cloning can be legalized. It would be really difficult to form a consensus on the future of human consensus. The objections to human cloning are not related to religious beliefs but are of ethical issues and the risks which it poses. Human cloning should not be legalized till the solution for such risks are finalized to an extent and the society is able to adapt to such changes.

Andrews, L. (1998). Is There aRight to Clone? Constitutional Challenges to Bans on Human Cloning. Harv JL Tech . Annas, G. (1998). Why We Should Ban Human Cloning. Medical Journal , 5-122. Baird, P. (1999). Cloning of Animals and Humans: What Should the Policy Response Be? Perspect Biological Medical Journal , 94-174. Brock, D. W. Cloning Human Begins. Brown University. Farah. (2010, October 25). Cloning - A Step Towards Immortality. Medical Journal . Logston, A. (1999). The Ethics of Human Cloning.

Cite this page

Share with friends using:

Removal Request

Finished papers: 2602

This paper is created by writer with

ID 276909138

If you want your paper to be:

Well-researched, fact-checked, and accurate

Original, fresh, based on current data

Eloquently written and immaculately formatted

275 words = 1 page double-spaced

Get your papers done by pros!

Other Pages

Justifying essays, audi essays, exhibiting essays, belkin essays, wedel essays, national institute of diabetes essays, ukrainian people essays, suitors of penelope essays, nightly news essays, service module essays, new king james version essays, methylmercury essays, american nightmare essays, pharmacy education essays, midaq alley essays, proper manners essays, x games essays, customer essays, art games and technology research course work sample, what type of record is better essay sample, missouri model of juvenile justice case study, good example of research paper on how early childhood education affects school learning and performance, essay on the future of the music industry and my contribution on it, free research paper on combating compassion fatigue, customer delight course work samples, crime essays examples, free essay on organized crime and white collar crime, good essay about jeremy bentham and john stuart mills theory of utilitarian moral values, family and consumer science statements critical thinkings example, girl with a pearl earring feature article argumentative essay samples, example of my relationship with my cell phone essay, example of thought paper 4 essay, modern mobile technology essay, good essay about financial analysis on google, example of disney brave story essay, good argumentative essay about what you eat is your business, placenta article reviews, motivator article reviews, proxy article reviews, emergency room article reviews, patriarchy article reviews, balanced diet article reviews, juror article reviews.

Password recovery email has been sent to [email protected]

Use your new password to log in

You are not register!

By clicking Register, you agree to our Terms of Service and that you have read our Privacy Policy .

Now you can download documents directly to your device!

Check your email! An email with your password has already been sent to you! Now you can download documents directly to your device.

or Use the QR code to Save this Paper to Your Phone

The sample is NOT original!

Short on a deadline?

Don't waste time. Get help with 11% off using code - GETWOWED

No, thanks! I'm fine with missing my deadline

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

NPR defends its journalism after senior editor says it has lost the public's trust

David Folkenflik

NPR is defending its journalism and integrity after a senior editor wrote an essay accusing it of losing the public's trust. Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images hide caption

NPR is defending its journalism and integrity after a senior editor wrote an essay accusing it of losing the public's trust.

NPR's top news executive defended its journalism and its commitment to reflecting a diverse array of views on Tuesday after a senior NPR editor wrote a broad critique of how the network has covered some of the most important stories of the age.

"An open-minded spirit no longer exists within NPR, and now, predictably, we don't have an audience that reflects America," writes Uri Berliner.

A strategic emphasis on diversity and inclusion on the basis of race, ethnicity and sexual orientation, promoted by NPR's former CEO, John Lansing, has fed "the absence of viewpoint diversity," Berliner writes.

NPR's chief news executive, Edith Chapin, wrote in a memo to staff Tuesday afternoon that she and the news leadership team strongly reject Berliner's assessment.

"We're proud to stand behind the exceptional work that our desks and shows do to cover a wide range of challenging stories," she wrote. "We believe that inclusion — among our staff, with our sourcing, and in our overall coverage — is critical to telling the nuanced stories of this country and our world."

NPR names tech executive Katherine Maher to lead in turbulent era

She added, "None of our work is above scrutiny or critique. We must have vigorous discussions in the newsroom about how we serve the public as a whole."

A spokesperson for NPR said Chapin, who also serves as the network's chief content officer, would have no further comment.

Praised by NPR's critics

Berliner is a senior editor on NPR's Business Desk. (Disclosure: I, too, am part of the Business Desk, and Berliner has edited many of my past stories. He did not see any version of this article or participate in its preparation before it was posted publicly.)

Berliner's essay , titled "I've Been at NPR for 25 years. Here's How We Lost America's Trust," was published by The Free Press, a website that has welcomed journalists who have concluded that mainstream news outlets have become reflexively liberal.

Berliner writes that as a Subaru-driving, Sarah Lawrence College graduate who "was raised by a lesbian peace activist mother ," he fits the mold of a loyal NPR fan.

Yet Berliner says NPR's news coverage has fallen short on some of the most controversial stories of recent years, from the question of whether former President Donald Trump colluded with Russia in the 2016 election, to the origins of the virus that causes COVID-19, to the significance and provenance of emails leaked from a laptop owned by Hunter Biden weeks before the 2020 election. In addition, he blasted NPR's coverage of the Israel-Hamas conflict.

On each of these stories, Berliner asserts, NPR has suffered from groupthink due to too little diversity of viewpoints in the newsroom.

The essay ricocheted Tuesday around conservative media , with some labeling Berliner a whistleblower . Others picked it up on social media, including Elon Musk, who has lambasted NPR for leaving his social media site, X. (Musk emailed another NPR reporter a link to Berliner's article with a gibe that the reporter was a "quisling" — a World War II reference to someone who collaborates with the enemy.)

When asked for further comment late Tuesday, Berliner declined, saying the essay spoke for itself.

The arguments he raises — and counters — have percolated across U.S. newsrooms in recent years. The #MeToo sexual harassment scandals of 2016 and 2017 forced newsrooms to listen to and heed more junior colleagues. The social justice movement prompted by the killing of George Floyd in 2020 inspired a reckoning in many places. Newsroom leaders often appeared to stand on shaky ground.

Leaders at many newsrooms, including top editors at The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times , lost their jobs. Legendary Washington Post Executive Editor Martin Baron wrote in his memoir that he feared his bonds with the staff were "frayed beyond repair," especially over the degree of self-expression his journalists expected to exert on social media, before he decided to step down in early 2021.

Since then, Baron and others — including leaders of some of these newsrooms — have suggested that the pendulum has swung too far.

Author Interviews

Legendary editor marty baron describes his 'collision of power' with trump and bezos.

New York Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger warned last year against journalists embracing a stance of what he calls "one-side-ism": "where journalists are demonstrating that they're on the side of the righteous."

"I really think that that can create blind spots and echo chambers," he said.

Internal arguments at The Times over the strength of its reporting on accusations that Hamas engaged in sexual assaults as part of a strategy for its Oct. 7 attack on Israel erupted publicly . The paper conducted an investigation to determine the source of a leak over a planned episode of the paper's podcast The Daily on the subject, which months later has not been released. The newsroom guild accused the paper of "targeted interrogation" of journalists of Middle Eastern descent.

Heated pushback in NPR's newsroom

Given Berliner's account of private conversations, several NPR journalists question whether they can now trust him with unguarded assessments about stories in real time. Others express frustration that he had not sought out comment in advance of publication. Berliner acknowledged to me that for this story, he did not seek NPR's approval to publish the piece, nor did he give the network advance notice.

Some of Berliner's NPR colleagues are responding heatedly. Fernando Alfonso, a senior supervising editor for digital news, wrote that he wholeheartedly rejected Berliner's critique of the coverage of the Israel-Hamas conflict, for which NPR's journalists, like their peers, periodically put themselves at risk.

Alfonso also took issue with Berliner's concern over the focus on diversity at NPR.

"As a person of color who has often worked in newsrooms with little to no people who look like me, the efforts NPR has made to diversify its workforce and its sources are unique and appropriate given the news industry's long-standing lack of diversity," Alfonso says. "These efforts should be celebrated and not denigrated as Uri has done."

After this story was first published, Berliner contested Alfonso's characterization, saying his criticism of NPR is about the lack of diversity of viewpoints, not its diversity itself.

"I never criticized NPR's priority of achieving a more diverse workforce in terms of race, ethnicity and sexual orientation. I have not 'denigrated' NPR's newsroom diversity goals," Berliner said. "That's wrong."

Questions of diversity

Under former CEO John Lansing, NPR made increasing diversity, both of its staff and its audience, its "North Star" mission. Berliner says in the essay that NPR failed to consider broader diversity of viewpoint, noting, "In D.C., where NPR is headquartered and many of us live, I found 87 registered Democrats working in editorial positions and zero Republicans."

Berliner cited audience estimates that suggested a concurrent falloff in listening by Republicans. (The number of people listening to NPR broadcasts and terrestrial radio broadly has declined since the start of the pandemic.)

Former NPR vice president for news and ombudsman Jeffrey Dvorkin tweeted , "I know Uri. He's not wrong."

Others questioned Berliner's logic. "This probably gets causality somewhat backward," tweeted Semafor Washington editor Jordan Weissmann . "I'd guess that a lot of NPR listeners who voted for [Mitt] Romney have changed how they identify politically."

Similarly, Nieman Lab founder Joshua Benton suggested the rise of Trump alienated many NPR-appreciating Republicans from the GOP.

In recent years, NPR has greatly enhanced the percentage of people of color in its workforce and its executive ranks. Four out of 10 staffers are people of color; nearly half of NPR's leadership team identifies as Black, Asian or Latino.

"The philosophy is: Do you want to serve all of America and make sure it sounds like all of America, or not?" Lansing, who stepped down last month, says in response to Berliner's piece. "I'd welcome the argument against that."

"On radio, we were really lagging in our representation of an audience that makes us look like what America looks like today," Lansing says. The U.S. looks and sounds a lot different than it did in 1971, when NPR's first show was broadcast, Lansing says.

A network spokesperson says new NPR CEO Katherine Maher supports Chapin and her response to Berliner's critique.

The spokesperson says that Maher "believes that it's a healthy thing for a public service newsroom to engage in rigorous consideration of the needs of our audiences, including where we serve our mission well and where we can serve it better."

Disclosure: This story was reported and written by NPR Media Correspondent David Folkenflik and edited by Deputy Business Editor Emily Kopp and Managing Editor Gerry Holmes. Under NPR's protocol for reporting on itself, no NPR corporate official or news executive reviewed this story before it was posted publicly.