Con: The idea of cloning is fascinating, but is too dangerous to be pursued.
By Audrey Reed
Opinions Editor
In “Jurassic Park,” in MTV’s “Clone High” and even in “The Rocky Horror Picture Show,” the human fascination with reproducing living organisms in a test tube is exhibited. Undoubtedly, this development is intriguing. One hundred years ago cloning a cat or even a frog would have seemed impossible. But now, with the help of some very gifted scientists, we must decide where cloning fits into our society.
This new responsibility must be evaluated with the teachings of one’s faith. God gave these scientists the skills to acquire the knowledge they have about the innermost working of the animal and human bodies. With this knowledge they have found cures for diseases.
The difference between this and cloning is that cloning involves the actual creation of organisms while testing involves the life of an organism, but uses what our creator has given. Thus, cloning and testing use a very different type of power and school of thought.
Outside of this is the practicality of cloning. Going against Mother Nature can be a dangerous action. “Jurassic Park” seemed very fictional a decade ago, but today it is viewed as a possible reality. Cloning has appealed to animal lovers when they said that it can prolong endangered species’ existence.
Imagine what life would be like if dinosaurs were still here today. They were not meant to continue living, and in accordance with nature, died. It is natural for animals to become extinct. Cloning disrupts this process. If these animals were meant to live and they are endangered because of human hunting, then the solution will not be found in cloning. So instead of merely making more of an animal so humans can kill them, we should conserve what we have and let nature take its course.
We should not disrupt nature with our own supply and demand needs. This unjustifiably is trying to change nature’s balance. Cloning merely covers up the irresponsibility of human actions and it should not cover up a problem that can be solved in a much simpler manner.
Also, there are many dangerous implications for both animals and humans. Cloning experiments, like all experiments, have unpredictable outcomes.
With other experiments, the variables are plants, human reactions or chemicals. But with cloning the stakes are much higher: human and animal life. This is an entirely new arena in science. People always look back at history to justify cloning. For example, they might compare the leeriness of the public to accept the personal computer. While the computer is now important for our daily functioning, cloning would change the way we view life.
We cannot use this same reasoning to rationalize cloning.
In recent cloning experiments there have been unexpected results. Researchers at Texas A&M University cloned a cat last year. The clone cat, named Cc for carbon copy, did not quite live up to its name. The cloned cat is playful, slender and has a stripe of gray. The original cat is heavier, shy and does not bear the gray stripe.
While the experiment was to some extent successful, these scientists had no idea what would come of their experiment. Should we really be so unsure of such things when dealing with life?
Another experiment in Massachusetts successfully cloned a human embryo with the intent to create stem cells. This case raises another ethical question. Should we create life in order to destroy it? If these practices become the norm, life would never be looked at the same. The sanctity of life would be virtually destroyed.
Cloning can also be exploited. The Raelian religious sect is making headlines and allegedly making human clones, which has created many legal problems regarding guardianship and concerns with human cloning itself.
Cloning must be controlled. However, it would be nearly impossible to monitor it everywhere in the world. Cloning’s benefits are unknown and can be achieved through other means.
In short, the idea of cloning is amazing. The reality of cloning is not.
January 30, 2003
