A look at cloning.
When scientists succeeded in cloning a sheep in 1997, the world woke to a startling discovery. Someday, somewhere, there could be a human clone. The discovery was a dream come true for many, but for others it was a nightmare. What would a cloned human being turn out to be? What makes humans different from each other?

Even identical twins are different in many ways. Whether physical, mental, or emotional, each is a different individual. Obviously, a clone would not be the same "person" as its DNA benefactor. The Frankenstein thoughts that many have towards cloning raise the important question of whether the clone is a "real" person, or just technology.

What is the value of a human being? Will a human clone have the same value?

First, let's investigate the exact definition of cloning. The American Medical Association (AMA) defines cloning as "the production of genetically identical organisms via somatic cell nuclear transfer. 'Somatic cell nuclear transfer' refers to the process which the nucleus of a somatic cell of an existing organism is transferred into an oocyte from which the nucleus has been removed" (Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs 1). In layman's terms, the clone has the same genes as his/her DNA parent. Our genes determine the color of our hair, eyes, the pigment of our skin, height, weight, etc. So, by creating a clone, we are creating a "replica" of ourselves.

Some scientists are supportive of cloning for reasons other than medical advantages. Chicago physicist Richard Seed believes that human cloning is a necessary venture in the name of research and scientific progress. "We are going to become one with God. We are going to have almost as much knowledge and almost as much power as God. Cloning and the reprogramming of DNA is the first serious step in becoming one with God." Joe Palca, "Human Cloning," National Public Radio's All Things Considered, January 6, 1998

One of the benefits touted by mainstream scientists in favor of cloning would be the fact that scientists would be able to create a clone in order to provide organs or cells to humans. Dr. Robert Lanza states, "Our intention is not to create cloned human beings, but rather to make lifesaving therapies for a wide range of human disease conditions, including diabetes, strokes, cancer, Aids, and neurodegenerative disorders such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's disease."

So, does that mean we are creating replacements for our organs and cells? Kind of like rechargeable batteries? Those in opposition to human cloning frequently raise concerns that scientists will create "disposable" humans. OK, it sounds off the wall. However, consider the fact that The Rosland Institute needed 400 implants to make Dolly the cloned sheep. What happened to the 399 that didn't work? Even more startling statistics occurred in the first human cloning experimentation this year. All forty-eight embryos created by Dr. Hall and Dr. Stillman perished.

Forty-eight human beings were destroyed in the quest to create a human clone. Was it worth it? That's the question we must answer within ourselves.

About the Author

Tenille is currently a freelance writer and editor. She is a former professional ballet dancer and actress.