Table of ContentsVarious Values ​​Implemented for Contested Human CloningWhat are the social values ​​regarding human cloning? How much would it cost and when will it be affordable for common people?What work has been done so far and what is the success rate?Some of the security concerns?ConclusionReferencesThe concept or definition of cloning involves asexually producing an exact copy of an organism simply by using its genetic information. So, when we talk about human cloning, it is the act of artificially producing a genetically identical copy of a human being. Cloning occurs naturally. An example of this phenomenon is the formation of identical twins in the womb. The controversy over human cloning primarily concerns a procedure used by scientists in the laboratory, known as "somatic cell nuclear transfer." The Current Health and Science Journal discusses the pros and cons of human cloning. According to the essay, the possibility of cloning technologies allows the medical field to renew damaged tissue and grow a new cell to replace the damaged tissue. This approach could open up new possibilities for growing genetically identical organs such as kidneys, hearts or bone marrow for patients awaiting transplants. This can benefit the biomedical field immensely. The cloning process can also help an infertile couple have their own child who shares their own genetic information. Although the process of human cloning has its advantages, it also has equally disadvantageous factors. According to the Health Science Journal, cloning creates identical genes, which prevents genetic diversity. Genetic diversity is what helps an organism adapt to its environment and thrive as a species. One of Charles Darwin's theories of natural selection is the ability of an organism to adapt to an environment in order to survive. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get the original essayThis literature examines the pros and cons of human cloning to examine whether it is ethical to pursue human cloning by answering the questions following: What policies/laws, religious and educational values ​​have been implemented to combat human cloning? What are the social values ​​regarding human cloning? When will it be more affordable for ordinary people? Are there policies that prohibit human cloning if it only benefits the rich? What type of work has been done so far and what is the success rate? What are some of the security concerns? Understanding the ethical issues surrounding continued human cloning from a social, economic, and political perspective will shed light on how leaders in the scientific, political, and religious communities can begin to address and resolve this complex issue. Various values ​​that have been implemented in the context of contested human cloning. Cloning,” by Bonnie Stabile, laws against human cloning are more likely in states that are against abortion, lack aspiration to support biotechnological and scientific advances, and are more likely to be politically conservative. However, the states most likely to pursue human cloning are politically liberal and have greater aspirations to support biotechnology and scientific advancement. These states also tend to be less affected byreligious beliefs. Thus, they also tend to be more permissive toward abortion. The cloning controversy has recently been brought to public attention. Thus, policies and laws are currently being formulated both in States and internationally. In the United States, in accordance with laws and public policies on cloning, on July 31, 2001, the House of Representatives passed a bill entitled "The Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2001." This bill, however, was not supported by the Senate. Similarly, on February 27, 2003, the House of Representatives passed a bill almost identical to that of 2001, titled "Prohibition of Human Cloning Act of 2003". This was also not supported by the Senate. The federal government has yet to adopt policies regulating human cloning; This is why several states have taken up the issue and adopted their own laws and regulations regarding human cloning. Reviewing the international organization's policies and regulations, the United Nations approved a non-binding global ban on all human cloning in March 2005, according to the BBC report. The United States and various Catholic countries voted for, while the United Kingdom voted against the policy. The American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (APPLOG) is also against the concept of human cloning. This drew attention to the fact that some businessmen might consider trading human life for beneficial purposes. An intriguing question arises regarding the status of the cloned human within society. In the United States, the House of Representatives has ruled that human cloning is illegal; but the Senate has not yet ruled on the matter. According to the Current Health Science Journal, in December 2006, Australia banned human cloning. Pope Benedict XVI's Roman Catholic Church has condemned the practice of cloning, saying it represents "a serious offense to human dignity and equity among peoples." Jess Rainbow explained that the ideology of cloning is actually the act of “playing God.” Similarly, in Saudi Arabia, on June 28, 1997, human cloning was banned, claiming that it was a great sin. Michael J. Sandles, true to the traditional values ​​of humanity, poses an intriguing question to his readers: Is human cloning unethical since only the rich can benefit from it? Or is it because it’s dehumanizing. Sandles presents the following main argument for the immorality of genetic engineering: "The fundamental question is not how to ensure equality of access, but whether we should aspire to it in the first place." According to the journal, "Balancing Morality and Economy: The Case of State Human Cloning," about one-third of states with cloning laws had universities in favor of supporting cloning research. In the states of California, New Jersey, and Connecticut, permissive cloning laws have been passed. In the United States, universities that were not involved in the political process; the educational system of these states did not support and make no contribution to this issue, established restrictive laws on cloning. What are the social values ​​regarding human cloning? human cloning, strongly believe in the preservation and protection of the social values ​​of a traditional family. Some opponents, like physician Leon Kass, argue that giving birth in a laboratory takes away the beauty of the "natural and necessary umbilical bond between a mother and child." According to Kass, creating babies in a laboratory is unnatural and it is morally and fundamentally wrong. Likewise, a political scientist, James Q. Wilson,agrees with Kass on preserving a traditional family; But he also wants to limit cloning to heterosexual couples only. Baroness Mary Warnock, architect of British fertility law, supports this technological advance. She believes that protecting a “traditional family” ideology restricts the homosexual community from having its own ideal “traditional family.” Warnock states: “Even if most people consider homosexual childbearing to be 'unnatural,' that in itself cannot constitute a moral imperative to prohibit it. Similarly, the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority (HFEA) has supported and assisted reproductive agencies in Britain since 2002. The other social concern associated with human cloning is its effects on individuality and freedom. As a human, everyone has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The report published by the Presidential Council on Bioethics emphasizes that human cloning can pose a major problem of identity and individuality. This means using a child to provide organs and tissues, as the chances of rejection will be very low. This would deprive the cloned child of the values ​​that a human being possesses. Simply, the cloned child would serve to meet the needs of someone else. Genetically modified child or not, this is something that the bioethics committee does not support. How much would it cost and when will it be affordable for ordinary people? According to Jenny Bradford's research article "Human Cloning", cost is one of the most important. major limiting factors in the pursuit of human cloning. For example, the cost of in vitro fertilization (which is used by infertile couples to be able to have babies who share their DNA) is currently estimated to be at least US$50,000. It is hoped that in a few years the price will drop to between 20,000 and 30,000 US dollars. This remains a significant expense that most ordinary people cannot afford. This only concerns people with fertility problems. Time Magazine reported that in 2001, donor organs, such as kidneys, bone marrow, liver, etc., can cost between $200,000 and $2 million per organ. Caplan, a researcher and scientist, once said: "The question will be whether we can afford the cloned cells or whether only the rich will get them." No reason to think that the health system will work any differently when it comes to cloning…. I really fear that this will become a benefit that only the rich will benefit from.” So, this type of advancement in medicine and technology will not benefit the majority of the United States population. Are there policies that prohibit human cloning if it only benefits the rich? Vivek Wadhwa of MIT Technology Review wrote, “Laws and ethics cannot keep pace with technology.” As a society, there are laws that must be respected, a code of ethics that must be respected. But in the world of technology, such things do not exist. It is always more important to regulate any ethics or laws. On the other hand, there are also individuals who oppose such ideas. For example, in Michael J. Sandles' argumentative article, "The Case Against Perfection: What's Wrong with Designer Children, Bionic Athlete and Genetic Engineering," he argues that continued human cloning would mean that as a society, everything the world is recognizing or accepting the idea that the rich are more deserving than the poor. This would lead to a much greater divide in class stratification between the rich and the poor. Sandles also askedits readers to envision a future in which those less fortunate are denied the benefits of these advances in the biomedical and technological fields. He emphasizes that unequal equal access to this technology and medical progress constitutes a serious ethical consideration. Although both cases demonstrate the importance of class consideration, at this time no final decision has been made. What work has been done so far and what is the success rate? Although cloning has been a major controversial topic for the past two decades, the history of cloning spans over 100 years. The first ever demonstration of artificial embryo matching took place in 1885. Examining the history of cloning, a study conducted by the Department of Genetics at the University of Utah, this experiment was conducted by Hans Adolf Edward Dreisch . He showed that by simply shaking two cellular sea urchin embryos, it was possible to separate the cells. Once the cells were successfully separated, each cell became a separate sea urchin. Fast forward to 1952, the first ever successful nuclear transfer. This experiment was carried out by Robert Briggs and Thomas King on a frog. Briggs and King transferred the nucleus of a tadpole into nucleusless frog eggs. The resulting cell grew into the tadpole. This experiment was not as successful because the donor nuclei were much more advanced. The few tadpoles that survived became abnormal. Then in 1975, J. Derek Bromhall conducted an experiment on a rabbit; becoming the first mammal by nuclear transfer. Bromhall considered this experiment a success due to the advanced embryos developed after a few days. He never continued the experiment to find out whether the embryos developed into healthy adult cells. Shortly after just two decades, in 1996, Dolly, the first mammal, was created. Dolly was a sheep created by Ian Wilmut and Keith Campbell using the somatic nuclear transfer technique. According to the Department of Genetics at the University of Utah, out of 277 attempts, only one produced an embryo that was carried to term in a surrogate mother. After Wilmut and Campbell's experiment, cloning became a very controversial topic around the world. A few years later, in the years 1998-1999, more mammals were created, such as cows, mice and goats. All mammals that have reached the embryonic stage have progressed from fetal to advanced cells. In 2013, Choukhart Mitalipov and several other colleagues made a breakthrough by creating human embryonic stem cells using somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). The result was a baby with a rare genetic disorder. Even though the Schuss rate of human cloning is very low, it is still too difficult to say that it is not feasible. According to the Department of Genetics at the University of Utah, the success rate of human cloning will be promising in the next 10 to 15 years. Some of the security concerns? When reviewing the dissertation, “Balancing Morality and Economics: The Case for Human Cloning,” by Bonnie Stabile, she reports that human reproductive cloning fails. A 2002 National Academy of Sciences states that this procedure will most likely fail and that the procedure is also dangerous for the egg donors, the surrogate mother as well as the cloned children. The cloning process is widely used on animals; and at present, there is no statistical data to guarantee the safety and effectiveness of human cloning. According to the journal Current Health Science, only about 3% of the population of cloned mice made it to birth. Reproductive cloning presents ahigh risk for women's health. According to the Science Journal, harvesting a large quantity of eggs would most likely result in a high dose of hormones. This alone may use invisible compilation from time to time. These women would then undergo surgery to extract the eggs. It will also expose women to more dangerous complications. Even though these women will be informed of the risk they are taking, that is, it is ethical to put these women at risk, all in the name of science. Studies by Cohen in 2002 demonstrated that cloned mice had shorter lifespans. He also observed that the immune systems of cloned mammals were very weak. Mammals were more prone to chronic diseases and more likely to be obese. For example, Dolly, the cloned sheep, suffered from arthritis and major obesity. Other researchers, like Rudolf Jaenish, who is doing a thesis at MIT, argue that most of the time, cloned animals are defective. Thus, when focusing on the pursuit of human cloning, safety is one of the major ethical issues that has yet to be resolved. Regarding the question “Is it ethical to pursue human cloning?” ", there is not yet a set of policies and regulations in place in the United States and internationally. This article examines the ethical issues related to the pursuit of human cloning from social, economic, political, religious and educational perspectives. The opinions of researchers, scientists, politicians and religious leaders on the pros and cons of this ethical issue were examined. Proponents of human cloning are intrigued by these scientific and technological advances. They think it will be a revolution and a great benefit to the human population. Supporters such as Warnock (an architect of the UK's fertility law) believe it can help infertile couples be able to have a child who shares their own DNA information. The Current Health Journal also explained how human cloning can be beneficial in the medical field. Cloning technologies can help replace damaged tissues or donor organs. While opponents, on the other hand, believe that this practice is harmful to society. They believe that continued human cloning would create class division and problems with individuality and identity. Additionally, they also believe it poses security concerns. In 2001, Time Magazine reported that the cost of cloned donor organs was estimated to be between $200,000 and $2 million. This kind of expense is not what ordinary people can afford. This is only beneficial for the wealthy population. Michael J. Sandle, an opponent of this practice, asserts that by allowing such a practice it would lead to a great divide in class stratification between the rich and the poor. There is also the concern for security. Cohen, in 2002, conducted studies on cloned mammals. He observed that the immune systems of cloned mammals were much weaker. Cloned mammals appear to be more prone to chronic diseases. For example, Dolly, the cloned sheep, suffered from obesity and arthritis. Similarly, Rudolf Jaenish states that cloning will result in defective animals. However, as this has only recently come to public attention, it can sometimes take some time before regulations or laws are permanently set. Not to mention that these scientific advances may have only scratched the surface of their true potential. The recent breakthrough came in 2013, thanks to Shukhart Mitalipov and several other colleagues. Even though their breakthrough was not, 23(1), 3-10.