A multitude of possible technological and biological advancements arise from human cloning: ridding infertility, understanding and combatting disease, eliminating liver and kidney failure, reversing the aging process, saving endangered/extinct species, etc. The reproductive cloning of humans will grant researchers a better understanding of the human genome, therefore allowing them to successfully pursue the aforementioned possibilities. Even with the numerous beneficial aspects, human cloning (on an individual scale, not with tissues) has been called for a United Nations ban by more than 60 of the world's leading science academies. Why would these science academies push for the ban of human cloning knowing the endless opportunities it may provide?
Psychological, social, and physiological risks associated with the reproductive cloning of humans are condemned universally. These risks introduce an increased likelihood of the the loss of life. The cloned embryo requires thorough investigation to prove its fitness and viability; even after implanting the successful cloned embryo into the womb, the pregnancy itself may fail. The loss of one life is constitutes as too much. In 2007, an experiment suffered through 100 failed attempts before successfully cloning a macaque.
Additionally, human reproductive cloning endangers individuality. Human identity would be compromised and diversification would decrease. Monozygotic twins, colloquially known as identical twins or natural clones, often report lacking a sense of individuality. The birth rate of identical twins is 0.4% (1 in 250, or 4 in 1000). Logically, the increase in "clones" ensues an increase in those reports.
I understand why the science academies issued a ban against this type of research because it does take a lot of science studies to try and pin point how specifically these trials can be successful without harming anyone.ReplyDelete