| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|PETER NJERU KARUANA |
|C01/12400/2006 |
| |
| |
| |
|CCS 007 SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY IN DEVELOPMENT |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|A DISCUSSION ON THE ETHICS OF CLONING |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|PRESENTED TO |
|ENG. MUTURI |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING |
|UNIVERSITY OF NAIROBI |
| |
| |
|15 JULY 2011 |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |

ABSTRACT Cloning is the common term used to refer to Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT) which is the technology of making genetically identical organisms through non-sexual means. Although cloning has been used for many years to produce plants its only in 1997 that the birth of the first mammal occurred. This was the birth of a sheep named Dolly cloned by scientists Ian Wilmat, Keith Campell and others at the Roslin Institute in Scotland.

The cloning of Dolly opened the way for other scientists to clone other animals but at the same time opened fierce debates among scientists, politicians and the general public about the use and morality of cloning plants, animals and possibly humans. The ongoing debate is the subject of this paper.

World opinion is symmetrically divided between those who find cloning a major technology breakthrough by scientists for humanity and those who read only danger, mischief and misuse of cloning technology. Many governments spurred by political opinions and religious pressure have rushed to pass legislation effectively banning human cloning within their territories either for some time or permanently. As Margaret Nash and David Bjerklie wrote in the February 1998 edition of the Time Magazine the fear pattern among opponents looks as follows: We maverick Physicists like Richard Seed open cloning clinics all over world to duplicate famous people. Lawmakers cannot fathom the nightmarish vision in which billionaires and celebrities flood the world with genetic copies of themselves.

However cloning should be viewed like any other knowledge acquired science. Knowledge is ethically neutral and the positive aspects of cloning should be given more prominence than the negative. Consider the following examples. Biologists are exploring for medical purposes the technology that produced Dolly. They might for example, obtain healthy cells from a patient with leukemia or a burn victim and ten transfer the nucleus of each cell into an unfertilized egg from which the nucleus has been removed. Coddled in culture dishes these embryonic clones – each genetically identical to the patient from which the nuclei came – would begin to divide. For the leukemia patient, the cloned cells would provide an infusion of fresh bone marrow. Unlike the cells from an unrelated donor these cloned cells would incur no danger of rejection. According to Dr Robert Winston of London’s Hammersmith Hospital, patients would be spared the need to take powerful drugs to suppress the immune system.

Similarly plausible arguments can be advanced for the cloning of plants. It can be helpful to agriculture as the crop yields would be more reliable and predictable. Farmers can also grow food species which would otherwise be difficult to grow because of seed scarcity. Cloned crops could be more drought resistant and produce higher yields while at the same time they can be made resistant to particular type of diseases that hinder crop maturity and production

Moreover, the high yields possible with cloned crops come at a lower cost as the overall cost of growing crops could go down.

That notwithstanding the disadvantages of the cloning concept should also be taken into account in deciding whether to practice cloning or not. By cloning plants we interfere with the very natural process which can disrupt the ecological balance of nature. At the same time the chances of crops produced by cloned plants affecting human health cannot be ruled out.

REFERENCES: 1. Times magazine: February 9, 1988 2. Abhiji Naik: Benefits of Cloning: www.buzzle.com/articles November 27, 2010