describe cloning essay

ENCYCLOPEDIC ENTRY

Cloning is a technique scientists use to create exact genetic replicas of genes, cells, or animals.

Biology, Genetics, Health, Chemistry

Cloned Beagles

Two Beagle puppies successfully cloned in Seoul, South Korea. These two dogs were cloned by a biopharmaceutical company that specializes in stem cell based therapeutics.

Photograph by Handout

Cloning is a technique scientists use to make exact genetic copies of living things. Genes , cells, tissues, and even whole animals can all be cloned .

Some clones already exist in nature. Single-celled organisms like bacteria make exact copies of themselves each time they reproduce. In humans, identical twins are similar to clones . They share almost the exact same genes . Identical twins are created when a fertilized egg splits in two.

Scientists also make clones in the lab. They often clone genes in order to study and better understand them. To clone a gene , researchers take DNA from a living creature and insert it into a carrier like bacteria or yeast. Every time that carrier reproduces, a new copy of the gene is made.

Animals are cloned in one of two ways. The first is called embryo twinning. Scientists first split an embryo in half. Those two halves are then placed in a mother’s uterus. Each part of the embryo develops into a unique animal, and the two animals share the same genes . The second method is called somatic cell nuclear transfer. Somatic cells are all the cells that make up an organism, but that are not sperm or egg cells. Sperm and egg cells contain only one set of chromosomes , and when they join during fertilization, the mother’s chromosomes merge with the father’s. Somatic cells , on the other hand, already contain two full sets of chromosomes . To make a clone , scientists transfer the DNA from an animal’s somatic cell into an egg cell that has had its nucleus and DNA removed. The egg develops into an embryo that contains the same genes as the cell donor. Then the embryo is implanted into an adult female’s uterus to grow.

In 1996, Scottish scientists cloned the first animal, a sheep they named Dolly. She was cloned using an udder cell taken from an adult sheep. Since then, scientists have cloned cows, cats, deer, horses, and rabbits. They still have not cloned a human, though. In part, this is because it is difficult to produce a viable clone . In each attempt, there can be genetic mistakes that prevent the clone from surviving. It took scientists 276 attempts to get Dolly right. There are also ethical concerns about cloning a human being.

Researchers can use clones in many ways. An embryo made by cloning can be turned into a stem cell factory. Stem cells are an early form of cells that can grow into many different types of cells and tissues. Scientists can turn them into nerve cells to fix a damaged spinal cord or insulin-making cells to treat diabetes.

The cloning of animals has been used in a number of different applications. Animals have been cloned to have gene mutations that help scientists study diseases that develop in the animals. Livestock like cows and pigs have been cloned to produce more milk or meat. Clones can even “resurrect” a beloved pet that has died. In 2001, a cat named CC was the first pet to be created through cloning. Cloning might one day bring back extinct species like the woolly mammoth or giant panda.

Media Credits

The audio, illustrations, photos, and videos are credited beneath the media asset, except for promotional images, which generally link to another page that contains the media credit. The Rights Holder for media is the person or group credited.

Production Managers

Program specialists, specialist, content production, last updated.

October 19, 2023

User Permissions

For information on user permissions, please read our Terms of Service. If you have questions about how to cite anything on our website in your project or classroom presentation, please contact your teacher. They will best know the preferred format. When you reach out to them, you will need the page title, URL, and the date you accessed the resource.

If a media asset is downloadable, a download button appears in the corner of the media viewer. If no button appears, you cannot download or save the media.

Text on this page is printable and can be used according to our Terms of Service .

Interactives

Any interactives on this page can only be played while you are visiting our website. You cannot download interactives.

Related Resources

Presentations made painless

• Get Premium

115 Cloning Essay Topic Ideas & Examples

Inside This Article

Cloning has always been a controversial topic that sparks debates and discussions worldwide. The concept of creating an identical copy of an organism, whether it be a plant, animal, or even a human being, has both fascinated and frightened people for decades. If you have been assigned an essay on cloning and are looking for some inspiration, here are 115 cloning essay topic ideas and examples to help you get started:

• The history and evolution of cloning.
• The ethical implications of cloning.
• The science behind cloning and how it works.
• The benefits and potential applications of cloning in medicine.
• The disadvantages and risks associated with cloning.
• The role of cloning in genetic engineering.
• The cloning of extinct animals: should we bring them back to life?
• The moral dilemma of cloning endangered species.
• The social and psychological impact of human cloning.
• The legal and regulatory challenges of cloning.
• The religious perspectives on cloning.
• The impact of cloning on biodiversity.
• The role of cloning in agriculture and food production.
• The cloning of pets: a luxury or a necessity?
• The cloning of celebrities: the pursuit of immortality?
• The role of cloning in organ transplantation.
• The cloning debate: nature vs. nurture.
• The cloning of body parts: a solution for amputees?
• The cloning of animals for food production: ethical concerns.
• The cloning of endangered plants: preserving biodiversity.
• The cloning of plants for improved crop yield.
• The cloning of athletes: enhancing performance or cheating?
• The cloning of animals for scientific research.
• The potential risks of cloning humans: health and safety concerns.
• The cloning of Neanderthals: ethical considerations.
• The psychological impact on cloned individuals: identity and self-perception.
• The cloning of celebrities: a violation of privacy?
• The cloning of extinct plants: restoring ecosystems.
• The cloning of insects: controlling pests or disrupting ecosystems?
• The cloning of bacteria: implications for antibiotic resistance.
• The cloning of animals for entertainment purposes: ethical considerations.
• The cloning of endangered animals: saving species from extinction.
• The cloning of humans: the quest for immortality.
• The cloning of body parts for transplantation: ethical concerns.
• The cloning of plants for pharmaceutical purposes.
• The potential impact of cloning on global food security.
• The cloning of animals for military purposes: ethical considerations.
• The cloning of humans for organ harvesting: ethical dilemmas.
• The cloning of animals for cosmetic purposes: vanity or necessity?
• The cloning of animals for companionship: ethical considerations.
• The cloning of animals for scientific testing: ethical concerns.
• The cloning of humans for reproductive purposes: ethical dilemmas.
• The cloning of animals for zoos and wildlife conservation.
• The cloning of plants for environmental restoration.
• The cloning of animals for therapeutic purposes: ethical considerations.
• The cloning of humans for research purposes: ethical dilemmas.
• The cloning of animals for military applications: ethical concerns.
• The cloning of humans for genetic enhancement: ethical considerations.
• The cloning of animals for entertainment purposes: ethical dilemmas.
• The cloning of humans for cosmetic purposes: ethical concerns.
• The cloning of animals for agricultural purposes: ethical considerations.
• The cloning of humans for therapeutic purposes: ethical dilemmas.
• The cloning of animals for reproductive purposes: ethical concerns.
• The cloning of humans for military applications: ethical considerations.
• The cloning of animals for genetic enhancement: ethical dilemmas.
• The cloning of humans for entertainment purposes: ethical concerns.
• The cloning of animals for cosmetic purposes: ethical considerations.
• The cloning of humans for agricultural purposes: ethical dilemmas.
• The cloning of animals for therapeutic purposes: ethical concerns.
• The cloning of humans for reproductive purposes: ethical considerations.
• The cloning of animals for military applications: ethical dilemmas.
• The cloning of humans for genetic enhancement: ethical concerns.
• The cloning of humans for cosmetic purposes: ethical dilemmas.
• The cloning of animals for agricultural purposes: ethical concerns.
• The cloning of humans for therapeutic purposes: ethical considerations.
• The cloning of animals for reproductive purposes: ethical dilemmas.
• The cloning of humans for military applications: ethical concerns.
• The cloning of animals for genetic enhancement: ethical considerations.
• The cloning of humans for entertainment purposes: ethical dilemmas.
• The cloning of animals for cosmetic purposes: ethical concerns.
• The cloning of humans for agricultural purposes: ethical considerations.
• The cloning of animals for therapeutic purposes: ethical dilemmas.
• The cloning of humans for reproductive purposes: ethical concerns.
• The cloning of animals for military applications: ethical considerations.
• The cloning of humans for genetic enhancement: ethical dilemmas.
• The cloning of animals for entertainment purposes: ethical concerns.
• The cloning of humans for cosmetic purposes: ethical considerations.
• The cloning of animals for agricultural purposes: ethical dilemmas.
• The cloning of humans for therapeutic purposes: ethical concerns.
• The cloning of animals for reproductive purposes: ethical considerations.
• The cloning of humans for military applications: ethical dilemmas.
• The cloning of animals for genetic enhancement: ethical concerns.
• The cloning of humans for entertainment purposes: ethical considerations.
• The cloning of animals for cosmetic purposes: ethical dilemmas.
• The cloning of humans for agricultural purposes: ethical concerns.

These 115 cloning essay topic ideas and examples should provide you with a solid foundation to start your essay. Remember to choose a topic that interests you the most and conduct thorough research to support your arguments. Good luck!

Want to create a presentation now?

Instantly Create A Deck

Let PitchGrade do this for me

Hassle Free

We will create your text and designs for you. Sit back and relax while we do the work.

Explore More Content

• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Service

© 2023 Pitchgrade

117 Cloning Essay Topic Ideas & Examples

🏆 best cloning topic ideas & essay examples, 💡 most interesting cloning topics to write about, 📌 simple & easy cloning essay titles, 👍 good essay topics on cloning, ❓ cloning questions.

• The Concept of Human Cloning Human cloning on the other hand refers to the process of creation of genetically copy of a human. The Adult DNA cloning is the process that entails removing the DNA from the embryo and replacing […]
• Whether or Not Human Cloning Should Be Allowed One of the benefits of cloning is the fact that it is able to provide children to people with fertility problems. It is no wonder that the process of cloning cells to form embryos is […] We will write a custom essay specifically for you by our professional experts 808 writers online Learn More
• The Cloning Controversy Considering the fact that most of the controversy about cloning arises from misinformation or ignorance about the matter, this study shall set out to conclusively research on cloning and its merits so as to attest […]
• The New Advancements in Cloning and the Ethical Debate Surrounding It Cellular cloning involves use of somatic cells to produce a cell line identical to the original cell, and this can be used to produce therapies like those of molecular cloning.
• The State of Cloning in 2062 One of the concerns of those who are against cloning is that it is inhuman to collect, store and freeze the surplus embryos in order to use them later.
• Animal Cloning Benefits and Controversies This inefficiency of animal cloning depicts the consequences the animals have to experience, especially the donor and surrogate animals where surgery has to be performed to extract the cells of interest and implant the embryos.
• The Human Cloning Debates Nonetheless, the scientists opposed reproductive cloning claiming that the practice undermines the uniqueness of humankind and that it is unethical to put the lives of clones in a condition of being susceptible to harm or […]
• Ethics of Cloning It is important to understand that cloning is not associated with the production of a clone that has the same size and age as its donor, but rather, it is a form of twinning referred […]
• Human and Animal Production Cloning Concepts This research paper thus seeks to examine the concept of human and animal reproductive cloning with an aim of investigating the tenets of this concept and the perspective of society on the issue from ethical, […]
• Ethical Issues on Human Therapeutic and Reproductive Cloning The two types of cloning differ in the procedure involved and the objective of the process. In the case of reproductive cloning, the egg is already fertilized and its failure to develop into a complete […]
• Cloning in Terms of Society and Theology The aim of this paper is to establish the implications of cloning on society and understand the theologians are saying about cloning.
• Molecular, Cell and Organism Cloning Techniques Cloning is the process of creating a physical entity that is a precise copy of another organism or cell. In biology, cloning is understood as a duplication of biological material DNA, a cell, or a […]
• Molecular Cloning of GFP Gene Molecular cloning is a set of methods in molecular biology that is used to obtain multiple copies of the target DNA fragment. Bacterial transformation is a process of recombinant DNA insertion into a host bacterial […]
• Debate on Human Reproductive Cloning According to Baird, human cloning should be prohibited for the simple reason that the onus of justification will be placed on the shoulders of those performing the cloning rather than those who want the cloning […]
• Human Cloning as an Ethical Issue Cloning has retained the position of one of the most fascinating subjects, drawing the interest of researchers, sci-fi authors, and philosophers alike.
• Cloning, Expression, and Crystallisation of Pectate Lyase The emergence of molecular cloning has enhanced the application of pectate lyases in industrial processes of manufacturing natural fibres and fruit juices.
• Cloning Impact of Science & Technology on Society Technically speaking, cloning is a means of isolating particular parts of the genome in small fragments of DNA and making copies of and studying the sequence in another organism. And they should be open to […]
• No to Cloning for Medical Research Those who do not subscribe to cloning for biomedical research believe that the embryo is in fact “one of us”; a human life in process an equal member of the species “Homo Sapiens” in the […]
• Therapeutic and Reproductive Cloning, Ethical Issues However, a common problem is that though the person may have consented to the use of his biological samples for genetic research, he may not be aware of the future developments of genetic research to […]
• The Moral Case Against Cloning-for-Biomedical-Research In my view then it is a vain hope that researchers will be able to determine when a human person comes into existence simply by inspecting the biological and genetic evidence about the development of […]
• Human Cloning Technology and Its Justification Since human cloning is still in the experimental stage and the criticism for and against the subject is replete with valid reasons rational thinkers will be put to the dilemma in agreeing with either of […]
• Human Cloning Should Be Selectively Allowed Those who oppose the cloning of humans are concerned over the issue of the health of women, considering the large number of eggs that would be required for the process of human cloning and affirm […]
• Understanding the Human Cloning Concept All the religions of the world admit that the human beings were created by the God, and it is not in the human power to duplicate God’s creatures.
• Subsequent Cloning of PARK2 Gene The following description is a series of important events that led to the identification and subsequent cloning of the PARK2 gene responsible for Parkinson’s disease.
• Cloning of Organisms and Its Approaches Artificial embryo twining is the traditional way of cloning and can be said to be the lowest technology in the art of cloning.
• Animal Cloning and Engineering Another issue of especial importance to people is the preservation of endangered species of animals and breeding perfect samples of a kind since the achievement of the desired objective in purely biological ways is more […]
• Cloning: Ethical Questions The discovery of DNA and its role in predetermining the physical and mental subtleties of one’s existence, allowed us to realize that it is now only a matter of time before we are going to […]
• Definition, Benefits and Legislations on Human Cloning There are a number of ways in which the human cloning is beneficial to mankind the examples include: Better Understanding of Genetic Diseases.
• Medical Ethics. Reproductive and Therapeutic Cloning I suppose that cloning is one of the breakthroughs that need the system of counterbalance providing a holistic approach to the problem.
• Cloning and the Principles That Should Regulate It Since the research of the possibilities of cloning, as well as the opportunities that it opens for humankind, is still in process, it is worth stressing that the existing ethical principles have not been shaped […]
• Cloning of Plants at the Botanic Garden Cloning is now considered to be an efficient means to grow plants in being the result of vegetative propagation while seeds are the result of the natural reproductive phenomenon of plants.
• Animal and Reproductive Cloning: Current Events It is the nucleus that contains the DNA of the donor. Its DNA structure is similar to the donor.”The blastocyst is then transferred to the uterus of a surrogate mother”.
• Can Cloning Technology Be Useful for Endangered Species? This is because animal cloning is popularly understood as the creation of a copy of another animal, much the same way as the capability to create twins but in the laboratory.
• The Concept of DNA Cloning In the approach based on cells both the replicating molecule or the biological vehicle known as the vector and the foreign DNA fragment are cut using the same restriction enzyme to produce compatible cohesive or […]
• Controversies in Therapeutic Cloning The embryonic cells have a potential to transform into any type of cell in the body and because of this, opponents of therapeutic cloning assert that the procedure equates murder.
• Ethical Debate on Human Cloning Cloning refers to the scientific multiplication and production of new cells to reproduce individuals that resemble their natural counterparts. These proponents insist that cloning will lead to the production of individuals that are resistant to […]
• Counterarguments to Human Cloning One of the most controversial is the attempt to reproduce an exact replica of a human being through the process of cloning.
• The Case of Human Cloning at Kyunghee University The objective of the KUMC in the research was to conduct in vitro fertilization of the ova but the researchers went ahead and performed human cloning using some of the ova that they had obtained […]
• Genetics, Reproductive and Cloning Technology in “Frankenstein” If Mary Shelley was for the idea of cloning technology, I think her novel would have ended up with Frankenstein creating a female companion for the monster to compliment the theme of love in the […]
• Cloning Humans as a Controversial Question In this case, the offender is likely to cheat on the police to make the innocent be imprisoned and then continue to break the law.
• DNA Cloning and Sequencing: The Experiment The plasmid vector pTTQ18 and the GFP PCR product will be digested with restriction enzymes and the desired DNA fragments obtained thereof will be purified by Polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis and ligated with DNA ligase resulting […]
• Religious Perspective on Human Cloning The cloning of embryos exposes little humans to the danger of death. The article evaluates the position of religions in the world of technological reproduction.
• Genetic Modification and Cloning Even though it is hard to predict all the outcomes of genetic modification and cloning, I would suggest using CRISPR Cas9 in treating retinal diseases such as the one described in the case study.
• Should Cloning Be 100% Legal or Illegal? After all, an embryo is recognized as a living organism, and for cloning experiments, embryo cells would have to be killed in the research.
• Human Cloning and the Challenge of Regulation Cloning is, therefore, a highly beneficial process from a scientific standpoint, and it has the potential to usher in a new era of technological progress.
• Cloning: Genetically Identical Copy The clone develops in the womb and eventually, the adult female gives birth, with the new clone having an identical genetic makeup to the organism from which the somatic cell originated.
• Cloning, 3D Printing, and Artificial Parts: Replacement Strategies The possibility to turn such cells into any other is the main advantage of the method. This is 3D printing, apparently; as mentioned, it continues to grow more popular in medicine, which calls for studying […]
• The Human Cloning Issue and Ethics Additionally, as expressed by Ayala, “the biological endowment of mankind is rapidly deteriorating,” and cloning allows us to resolve such issues. As seen in the example of Frankenstein, “breatheless horror and disgust” are followed by […]
• Human Cloning and Kantian Ethics The current paper will define the issue of human cloning through the prism of Kantian ethics and support the idea of reproductive cloning being a contravention of human dignity and fundamental biological principles.
• Aspects of Cloning for Medical Purposes The second reason for the industry’s support is the cloning of vital organs for use in medicine, as it is known that there is a shortage of donor organs in the world.
• Human Cloning Considerations Analysis The multitude of the biologically born have no way of knowing their fathers and mothers and have all the rights in human society, and no one can even afford to think about violating them.
• The Issue of Cloning as Described in Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World
• What Are the Ethical Issues of Human Cloning
• Why is Human Cloning Considered Unethical
• The Practical and Ethical Issues Surrounding the Cloning of Human Cells
• What Would the World be Like with Human Cloning
• Why Animal Cloning And Its Funding Should Be Stopped
• The Issue of Surrogate Motherhood in the Cloning Debate
• Why Human Cloning Should Be Allowed
• The Portrayal of World Full of Faceless Human Cloning in Huxley’s A Brave New World
• The Positive Impact of Human Cloning in the Modern World
• The Perils of Cloning and Its Commercialization for Human Reproduction
• Three Reasons Why Cloning Should Not Be Allowed
• The Controversy Surrounding Cloning in the United States
• The Positive and Negative Effects of Using Cloning to Treat Genetic Disease
• The Mass Production of Humans: Why Cloning is Unethical
• The Issues Surrounding The Possibility Of Modern Day Artificial Cloning
• The Question of Whether There Is a Good Side to Human Cloning
• The Analysis of Genetic Engineered Cloning in Modern Society and Alterations to the DNA
• The National Bioethics Advisory Commission’s Perspective on Human Cloning
• Understanding Cloning, Its Effects on Humans, and Its Advantages
• Understanding the Issues of Cloning
• The Need for Regulation of Biotechnology, Bioengineering, and Cloning
• Upgrading Cybercafé and Installing Cloning Software
• The Positive, Negative and Ethical Aspects of Human Cloning
• The Description of Cloning and the Scientific Advancement Toward Human Cloning
• The Potential Benefits of Cloning and Genetic Engineering to the Future of Society
• The Electric Potential of the Female Body Liquids and the Effectiveness of Cloning
• The Sensitivity of the Subject of Cloning
• The Significance of Cloning Mammals on Human Cloning
• The New Breakthrough in Cloning Is a Great Advance in Biotechnology
• The Several Compelling Reasons Why Cloning Should Not Be Legalized
• The Deficiencies of Artificial Cloning for Realistic Medical and Scientific Purposes
• The Important Points in the Controversial Ethical Issue of Human Cloning
• Therapeutic Cloning and Stem Cell Therapy in South Korea
• The United States Law Banning Genetic Cloning Of Humans
• The Theme of Cloning in Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World
• Therapeutic Cloning to Obtain Embryonic Stem Cells Is Immoral
• The Science And The Laws Impacting Human Cloning
• The Impact of Legalizing Cloning in our Society
• The History, Characteristics and FDA Regulation of Animal Cloning
• The Moral and Ethical Implications of Human Cloning
• Can Cloning and Christianity Coexist?
• Does Artificial Human Cloning Challenge Ethical Boundaries?
• What Are the Different Religious Approaches to Human Cloning?
• Should All Human Cloning Be Banned?
• Why Does Cloning Have Such a High Failure Rate?
• Has Cloning Been Accomplished in Humans?
• Does Cloning Have the Potential to Imperil the World?
• Why Should Human Cloning Be Prohibited?
• How Could Cloning Save a Species From Going Extinct?
• Does Human Cloning Produce an Embryo?
• Why Is Human Cloning Morally Wrong?
• How Has the Media Trained People on the Ethics of Cloning?
• What Type of Reproduction Is Cloning Humans?
• How Can Human Cloning Benefit Society?
• What Is a Positive Effect of Human Cloning?
• Should Human Reproductive Cloning Be Legal?
• What Problem Is Cloning Trying to Solve?
• Does Religion Really Allow Cloning?
• Why Is Cloning Bad for the Environment?
• How Does Human Cloning Violate Human Rights?
• What Are the Controversies of Cloning?
• How Would Human Cloning Affect Human Evolution?
• Why Cloning Is Bad for Genetic Diversity?
• Can Cloning Lead to Mutations?
• What Is the Future of Human Cloning?
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, March 2). 117 Cloning Essay Topic Ideas & Examples. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/cloning-essay-topics/

"117 Cloning Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." IvyPanda , 2 Mar. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/topic/cloning-essay-topics/.

IvyPanda . (2024) '117 Cloning Essay Topic Ideas & Examples'. 2 March.

IvyPanda . 2024. "117 Cloning Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." March 2, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/cloning-essay-topics/.

1. IvyPanda . "117 Cloning Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." March 2, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/cloning-essay-topics/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "117 Cloning Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." March 2, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/cloning-essay-topics/.

• Bioethics Titles
• Genetic Engineering Topics
• Experiment Questions
• Moral Dilemma Paper Topics
• Innovation Titles
• Stem Cell Essay Titles
• DNA Essay Ideas
• Eugenics Questions
• Artificial Intelligence Questions
• Software Ideas
• Evolution Topics
• Biodiversity Research Topics
• Gene Titles
• Ethical Dilemma Titles
• Technology Essay Ideas

• Introduction to Genomics
• Educational Resources
• Policy Issues in Genomics
• The Human Genome Project
• Funding Opportunities
• Funded Programs & Projects
• Division and Program Directors
• Scientific Program Analysts
• Contact by Research Area
• News & Events
• Research Areas
• Research investigators
• Research Projects
• Clinical Research
• Data Tools & Resources
• Genomics & Medicine
• Family Health History
• For Patients & Families
• For Health Professionals
• Jobs at NHGRI
• Training at NHGRI
• Funding for Research Training
• Professional Development Programs
• NHGRI Culture
• Social Media
• Broadcast Media
• Image Gallery
• Press Resources
• Organization
• NHGRI Director
• Mission & Vision
• Policies & Guidance
• Institute Advisors
• Strategic Vision
• Leadership Initiatives
• Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
• Partner with NHGRI
• Staff Search

Cloning Fact Sheet

The term cloning describes a number of different processes that can be used to produce genetically identical copies of a biological entity. The copied material, which has the same genetic makeup as the original, is referred to as a clone. Researchers have cloned a wide range of biological materials, including genes, cells, tissues and even entire organisms, such as a sheep.

Do clones ever occur naturally?

Yes. In nature, some plants and single-celled organisms, such as bacteria , produce genetically identical offspring through a process called asexual reproduction. In asexual reproduction, a new individual is generated from a copy of a single cell from the parent organism.

Natural clones, also known as identical twins, occur in humans and other mammals. These twins are produced when a fertilized egg splits, creating two or more embryos that carry almost identical DNA . Identical twins have nearly the same genetic makeup as each other, but they are genetically different from either parent.

What are the types of artificial cloning?

There are three different types of artificial cloning: gene cloning, reproductive cloning and therapeutic cloning.

Gene cloning produces copies of genes or segments of DNA. Reproductive cloning produces copies of whole animals. Therapeutic cloning produces embryonic stem cells for experiments aimed at creating tissues to replace injured or diseased tissues.

Gene cloning, also known as DNA cloning, is a very different process from reproductive and therapeutic cloning. Reproductive and therapeutic cloning share many of the same techniques, but are done for different purposes.

What sort of cloning research is going on at NHGRI?

Gene cloning is the most common type of cloning done by researchers at NHGRI. NHGRI researchers have not cloned any mammals and NHGRI does not clone humans.

How are genes cloned?

Researchers routinely use cloning techniques to make copies of genes that they wish to study. The procedure consists of inserting a gene from one organism, often referred to as "foreign DNA," into the genetic material of a carrier called a vector. Examples of vectors include bacteria, yeast cells, viruses or plasmids, which are small DNA circles carried by bacteria. After the gene is inserted, the vector is placed in laboratory conditions that prompt it to multiply, resulting in the gene being copied many times over.

How are animals cloned?

In reproductive cloning, researchers remove a mature somatic cell , such as a skin cell, from an animal that they wish to copy. They then transfer the DNA of the donor animal's somatic cell into an egg cell, or oocyte, that has had its own DNA-containing nucleus removed.

Researchers can add the DNA from the somatic cell to the empty egg in two different ways. In the first method, they remove the DNA-containing nucleus of the somatic cell with a needle and inject it into the empty egg. In the second approach, they use an electrical current to fuse the entire somatic cell with the empty egg.

In both processes, the egg is allowed to develop into an early-stage embryo in the test-tube and then is implanted into the womb of an adult female animal.

Ultimately, the adult female gives birth to an animal that has the same genetic make up as the animal that donated the somatic cell. This young animal is referred to as a clone. Reproductive cloning may require the use of a surrogate mother to allow development of the cloned embryo, as was the case for the most famous cloned organism, Dolly the sheep.

What animals have been cloned?

Over the last 50 years, scientists have conducted cloning experiments in a wide range of animals using a variety of techniques. In 1979, researchers produced the first genetically identical mice by splitting mouse embryos in the test tube and then implanting the resulting embryos into the wombs of adult female mice. Shortly after that, researchers produced the first genetically identical cows, sheep and chickens by transferring the nucleus of a cell taken from an early embryo into an egg that had been emptied of its nucleus.

It was not until 1996, however, that researchers succeeded in cloning the first mammal from a mature (somatic) cell taken from an adult animal. After 276 attempts, Scottish researchers finally produced Dolly, the lamb from the udder cell of a 6-year-old sheep. Two years later, researchers in Japan cloned eight calves from a single cow, but only four survived.

Besides cattle and sheep, other mammals that have been cloned from somatic cells include: cat, deer, dog, horse, mule, ox, rabbit and rat. In addition, a rhesus monkey has been cloned by embryo splitting.

Have humans been cloned?

Despite several highly publicized claims, human cloning still appears to be fiction. There currently is no solid scientific evidence that anyone has cloned human embryos.

In 1998, scientists in South Korea claimed to have successfully cloned a human embryo, but said the experiment was interrupted very early when the clone was just a group of four cells. In 2002, Clonaid, part of a religious group that believes humans were created by extraterrestrials, held a news conference to announce the birth of what it claimed to be the first cloned human, a girl named Eve. However, despite repeated requests by the research community and the news media, Clonaid never provided any evidence to confirm the existence of this clone or the other 12 human clones it purportedly created.

In 2004, a group led by Woo-Suk Hwang of Seoul National University in South Korea published a paper in the journal Science in which it claimed to have created a cloned human embryo in a test tube. However, an independent scientific committee later found no proof to support the claim and, in January 2006, Science announced that Hwang's paper had been retracted.

From a technical perspective, cloning humans and other primates is more difficult than in other mammals. One reason is that two proteins essential to cell division, known as spindle proteins, are located very close to the chromosomes in primate eggs. Consequently, removal of the egg's nucleus to make room for the donor nucleus also removes the spindle proteins, interfering with cell division. In other mammals, such as cats, rabbits and mice, the two spindle proteins are spread throughout the egg. So, removal of the egg's nucleus does not result in loss of spindle proteins. In addition, some dyes and the ultraviolet light used to remove the egg's nucleus can damage the primate cell and prevent it from growing.

Do cloned animals always look identical?

No. Clones do not always look identical. Although clones share the same genetic material, the environment also plays a big role in how an organism turns out.

For example, the first cat to be cloned, named Cc, is a female calico cat that looks very different from her mother. The explanation for the difference is that the color and pattern of the coats of cats cannot be attributed exclusively to genes. A biological phenomenon involving inactivation of the X chromosome (See sex chromosome ) in every cell of the female cat (which has two X chromosomes) determines which coat color genes are switched off and which are switched on. The distribution of X inactivation, which seems to occur randomly, determines the appearance of the cat's coat.

What are the potential applications of cloned animals?

Reproductive cloning may enable researchers to make copies of animals with the potential benefits for the fields of medicine and agriculture.

For instance, the same Scottish researchers who cloned Dolly have cloned other sheep that have been genetically modified to produce milk that contains a human protein essential for blood clotting. The hope is that someday this protein can be purified from the milk and given to humans whose blood does not clot properly. Another possible use of cloned animals is for testing new drugs and treatment strategies. The great advantage of using cloned animals for drug testing is that they are all genetically identical, which means their responses to the drugs should be uniform rather than variable as seen in animals with different genetic make-ups.

After consulting with many independent scientists and experts in cloning, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) decided in January 2008 that meat and milk from cloned animals, such as cattle, pigs and goats, are as safe as those from non-cloned animals. The FDA action means that researchers are now free to using cloning methods to make copies of animals with desirable agricultural traits, such as high milk production or lean meat. However, because cloning is still very expensive, it will likely take many years until food products from cloned animals actually appear in supermarkets.

Another application is to create clones to build populations of endangered, or possibly even extinct, species of animals. In 2001, researchers produced the first clone of an endangered species: a type of Asian ox known as a guar. Sadly, the baby guar, which had developed inside a surrogate cow mother, died just a few days after its birth. In 2003, another endangered type of ox, called the Banteg, was successfully cloned. Soon after, three African wildcats were cloned using frozen embryos as a source of DNA. Although some experts think cloning can save many species that would otherwise disappear, others argue that cloning produces a population of genetically identical individuals that lack the genetic variability necessary for species survival.

Some people also have expressed interest in having their deceased pets cloned in the hope of getting a similar animal to replace the dead one. But as shown by Cc the cloned cat, a clone may not turn out exactly like the original pet whose DNA was used to make the clone.

What are the potential drawbacks of cloning animals?

Reproductive cloning is a very inefficient technique and most cloned animal embryos cannot develop into healthy individuals. For instance, Dolly was the only clone to be born live out of a total of 277 cloned embryos. This very low efficiency, combined with safety concerns, presents a serious obstacle to the application of reproductive cloning.

Researchers have observed some adverse health effects in sheep and other mammals that have been cloned. These include an increase in birth size and a variety of defects in vital organs, such as the liver, brain and heart. Other consequences include premature aging and problems with the immune system. Another potential problem centers on the relative age of the cloned cell's chromosomes. As cells go through their normal rounds of division, the tips of the chromosomes, called telomeres, shrink. Over time, the telomeres become so short that the cell can no longer divide and, consequently, the cell dies. This is part of the natural aging process that seems to happen in all cell types. As a consequence, clones created from a cell taken from an adult might have chromosomes that are already shorter than normal, which may condemn the clones' cells to a shorter life span. Indeed, Dolly, who was cloned from the cell of a 6-year-old sheep, had chromosomes that were shorter than those of other sheep her age. Dolly died when she was six years old, about half the average sheep's 12-year lifespan.

What is therapeutic cloning?

Therapeutic cloning involves creating a cloned embryo for the sole purpose of producing embryonic stem cells with the same DNA as the donor cell. These stem cells can be used in experiments aimed at understanding disease and developing new treatments for disease. To date, there is no evidence that human embryos have been produced for therapeutic cloning.

The richest source of embryonic stem cells is tissue formed during the first five days after the egg has started to divide. At this stage of development, called the blastocyst, the embryo consists of a cluster of about 100 cells that can become any cell type. Stem cells are harvested from cloned embryos at this stage of development, resulting in destruction of the embryo while it is still in the test tube.

What are the potential applications of therapeutic cloning?

Researchers hope to use embryonic stem cells, which have the unique ability to generate virtually all types of cells in an organism, to grow healthy tissues in the laboratory that can be used replace injured or diseased tissues. In addition, it may be possible to learn more about the molecular causes of disease by studying embryonic stem cell lines from cloned embryos derived from the cells of animals or humans with different diseases. Finally, differentiated tissues derived from ES cells are excellent tools to test new therapeutic drugs.

What are the potential drawbacks of therapeutic cloning?

Many researchers think it is worthwhile to explore the use of embryonic stem cells as a path for treating human diseases. However, some experts are concerned about the striking similarities between stem cells and cancer cells. Both cell types have the ability to proliferate indefinitely and some studies show that after 60 cycles of cell division, stem cells can accumulate mutations that could lead to cancer. Therefore, the relationship between stem cells and cancer cells needs to be more clearly understood if stem cells are to be used to treat human disease.

What are some of the ethical issues related to cloning?

Gene cloning is a carefully regulated technique that is largely accepted today and used routinely in many labs worldwide. However, both reproductive and therapeutic cloning raise important ethical issues, especially as related to the potential use of these techniques in humans.

Reproductive cloning would present the potential of creating a human that is genetically identical to another person who has previously existed or who still exists. This may conflict with long-standing religious and societal values about human dignity, possibly infringing upon principles of individual freedom, identity and autonomy. However, some argue that reproductive cloning could help sterile couples fulfill their dream of parenthood. Others see human cloning as a way to avoid passing on a deleterious gene that runs in the family without having to undergo embryo screening or embryo selection.

Therapeutic cloning, while offering the potential for treating humans suffering from disease or injury, would require the destruction of human embryos in the test tube. Consequently, opponents argue that using this technique to collect embryonic stem cells is wrong, regardless of whether such cells are used to benefit sick or injured people.

Last updated: August 15, 2020

We now accept

Faster and secure way to pay.

• how it works
• Latest orders
• top writers
• How it works
• Academic writing 37
• Article review samples 2
• Bibliography samples 1
• Biography samples 2
• Book review samples 58
• Business paper samples 3
• Case study samples 11
• Coursework samples 2
• Critical thinking samples 2
• Dissertation samples 1
• Essay samples 331
• Essay topics 75
• Essay writing 53
• EssayShark Samples 600
• EssayShark Topics 115
• EssayShark Writing Guides 104
• Lab report samples 5
• Letter writing 3
• Movie review samples 16
• Poem analysis samples 1
• Presentation samples 21
• Presentation writing 1
• Research paper samples 85
• Research paper topics 31
• Research paper writing 5
• Research proposal samples 1
• Review writing 5
• Speech samples 13
• Speech writing 1
• Speech/presentation topics 8
• Summary samples 37
• Term paper topics 1
• Thesis samples 1
• Top writers

Get your writing assignment done in 4 simple steps

1 fill in order details.

• Submit your instructions to writers for free !
• Start receiving proposals from writers

2 Order bidding

• Chat with preferred expert writers
• Request a preview of your paper from them for free

3 Choose writer & reserve money

• Hire the most suitable writer to complete your order
• Reserve money for paying

4 Work process

• View the progress
• Give suggestions
• Pay only for approved parts

40+ Cloning Essay Topics: From Sheep to Identity

Today, cloning is not just limited to the realm of science fiction anymore. It’s a real industry and scientific area of research that may considerably change our lives. Perhaps, it’s one of the more controversial investigations in biology. Active debates in the media have led to a widespread belief that cloning may lead to extreme danger. Science fiction books and movies have contributed a lot to this state of affairs aswell.

Generally, cloning enables the reproduction of genetically similar organisms (also called clean lines). For example , plant cloning is just a common process in nature and farming. Usually, the plant is propagated by shoots, cuttings, tendrils, and so forth As you can see, nature has cloned organisms for billions of years. So , why can’t we clone other species?

Because the invention of the term “clone” in 1963, genetic engineering has notably developed. Boffins have learned how exactly to extract genes, develop a polymerase chain reaction method, decode the human genome, and clone several mammals. The next thing is obvious – human cloning, but it’s connected with various religious, ethical, and technological issues. Should we hesitate of human cloning? Can you really clone Hitler or Jesus Christ?

In the list below you want to share with you a summary of cloning debate topics linked to animal and human cloning. Enjoy!

Human Cloning Essay Topics

Human cloning is now an extremely popular theme of science fiction, and people have despaired within the idea of when this technology will step over from the pages and screens to actual life. Here we should share with you some issues and questions associated with human cloning.

• Persuade your audience whether human cloning should really be allowed.
• Describe the disease-associated gene. How do cloning over come such a illness? How does it affect diagnosis and treatment?
• Consider whether the potential benefits of human cloning outweigh the ethical side of the creation of artificial life.
• Is it physically safe to clone humans?
• Describe the current findings and future perspectives of human reproductive cloning.
• Do you know the ethical dilemmas connected to human cloning?
• Discuss the main findings of the Human Genome Project. Which are the implications? How would it affect you personally?
• Analyze the issues linked to human cloning in the context of organ transplantation.
• Describe the potential of therapeutic cloning in regenerative medicine. Is it a viable technology?
• Analyze the book “Frankenstein” by Mary Shelley from the perspective of stem cell cloning.
• Analyze the book “Our Posthuman Future” by F. Fukuyama in regards to the benefits and drawbacks of cloning.
• Can you allow the creation of your clone? Why or why not?
• How would human cloning affect us on a global scale?
• Analyze “Never I would ike to Go, ” a book by Ishiguro, in terms of scientific human cloning.
• Explore reproductive cloning in terms of medical ethics.
• Just how can human cloning affect our relationships?
• Analyze the reproductive cloning from the perspective of Kant’s theory and Leon Kass’s arguments.
• Approve or disapprove the following statement: “The cloning technology isn't perfect; it could lead to the death of the fetus. ”
• Analyze cloning from the perspective that it might be used by businessmen to sell organs for transplantation.
• What governmental regulations should be used to control cloning?
• Would it not be ethically and morally right to clone dead people?
• Do you think a clone has a soul?
• How is human cloning represented in the media?
• Analyze the situation where the clone is killed by the initial from a legislative and ethical side.
• Do you know the main difficulties with reproductive cloning? Why haven’t we cloned a human yet?

Interesting Cloning Debate Topics

There are lots of issues linked to cloning which have begun to cultivate since the 2000s. Today, the amount of provocative questions has only increased, and opinions have polarized, dividing people in to two opposing camps.

• Describe the negative and positive sides of cloning.
• Is cloning the correct path for science? What dangers does it have? Can it be worth the cash for the investigation?
• Analyze the faculties of artificial cloning.
• What's the future of cloning? What are the most prospective researches?
• Do you know the current types of using cloning? Describe the newest technologies.
• Describe the negative and positive sides of animal cloning.
• Discuss cloning in the context of bioethics.
• Does cloning relate with responsible citizenship? How?
• Analyze the cloning of bacteria and yeast, and its applications.
• Discuss cloning from the religious perspective. Can we say that cloning is similar to playing as God?
• Analyze the animal cloning business in South Korea. What insights can it give other countries?
• Do you know the major ethical dilemmas of genetic cloning?
• Do you consider it is bad to clone endangered species? In what situations can cloning be justified?
• Analyze George Bush’s speech on cloning.
• Should scientists need to share both benefits and burdens of cloning research?
• You think the US government should invest in cloning?
• Explore the philosophical issues of cloning.
• Analyze the current status of cloning in the US. Can there be any governmental law or regulation on cloning in the usa? Are there any scientific programs associated with cloning?
• Explore the peculiarities of the Dolly sheep cloning.
• Is it ethically right to clone pets?
• Explore the issues linked to cloning animals for food. What cloned animals already are used for food? Should we use cloned animals for food?
• Will cloning limit genetic diversity?

Clearly, cloning has significant potential advantages and many possible negative consequences. Much like many scientific advancements of the past, such as for example airplanes and computers, the only real threat is our narrow mindset.

Hopefully that our set of cloning essay topics will provide you with some food for thought. If you can’t manage to write an essay by yourself, our writers will eagerly assist you to! Fill in the order form and enjoy your daily life!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address won't be published. Required fields are marked *

Save your self my name, email, and website in this browser for the very next time I comment.

Unlock better papers

• communication regarding your orders
• to send you invoices, as well as other billing info
• to offer you marketing and promotional materials (if you give us permission to accomplish so)

Get free study materials

Get access to the list of our best samples for free. We divided them into categories of various types of papers and disciplines for your convenience.

What our customers say

• User Reviews
• Become a Freelance Writer
• essay writing app
• FAQ for Customers
• Terms & conditions
• Privacy policy
• Cookie Policy
• Confidentiality policy
• Refund Policy
• Ratings & Awards
• Personal Statement Help
• Personal Statement Writing Service
• Buy coursework
• Coursework Writing Service
• Coursework Help
• Write My Coursework
• College Paper Writing Service
• Topic Suggestion Tool
• Sample Papers
• Thesis Writing Service
• Buy research paper
• essay writing service

Payments by

• Admission Writing Service
• write my paper for cheap
• Fast Essay Writing Service
• Pay for Term Papers
• How to Write a Good Essay
• buy cheap essays
• Free Essays
• Dissertation Assistance
• Dissertation Writing Service
• Cheap Custom Essays
• EssayShark Legit
• research papers for sale
• College Essay Writing Service
• term paper writing service
• Write My College Essay
• Cheap Dissertation
• Philosophy Essay Writing Service
• research paper writing service
• speech writing service
• Buy Apa Papers
• case study writing service
• article review writing service
• research proposal writing service
• Do my PowerPoint Presentation
• Pay for research paper
• Buy dissertation
• essays for sale
• Buy College Essays

• Table of Contents
• Random Entry
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Advanced Tools
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

Dolly the sheep, the first mammal cloned from a somatic (body) cell, came into the world innocent as a lamb. However, soon after the announcement of her birth in February 1997 (Wilmut et al., 1997) she caused panic and controversy. An important, and for many people troubling question arose: if the cloning of sheep is possible, will scientists soon start cloning humans as well; and if they did, would this be wrong or unwise?

For most people, Dolly was really a wolf in sheep’s clothing. She represented a first undesirable and dangerous step to applying reproductive cloning in humans, something that many agreed should never be done. Only a small minority thought it was permissible, or even morally obligatory to conduct further research into human reproductive cloning. Some had no strong objections to it, but did not see any reason to promote it either.

Dolly is now stuffed and set up for display in the National Museum of Scotland. Many countries or jurisdictions have legally banned human cloning or are in the process of doing so. In some countries, including France and Singapore, reproductive cloning of humans is a criminal offence. In 2005, UNESCO adopted a ‘Declaration on Human Cloning’, which calls for a universal ban on human cloning (for an examination of the human cloning debate at UNESCO since 2008, see Langlois, 2017). The debate on human reproductive cloning seems to have drawn to a close. However, since reproductive cloning of mammals has become routine in several countries, there is reason to believe that at some point in the future, humans will be cloned too. Moreover, even if reproductive cloning will not be possible in the near future, cloning for research and therapeutic purposes is likely to be.

This entry describes the most important areas of disagreement regarding the ethics of cloning. I will focus on human cloning (as opposed to animal cloning), since human cloning has been the focus of the cloning debate.

1. What is Cloning?

2.1 creating and killing embryos for stem cells, 2.2 the need for oocytes, 2.3 social justice considerations, 2.4 a slippery slope to reproductive cloning, 3.1 safety and efficiency, 3.2 harm to the individual conceived through cloning, 3.3 harm to others, 3.4 human dignity, 4. religious perspectives, other internet resources, related entries.

Strictly speaking, cloning is the creation of a genetic copy of a sequence of DNA or of the entire genome of an organism. In the latter sense, cloning occurs naturally in the birth of identical twins and other multiples. But cloning can also be done artificially in the laboratory via embryo twinning or splitting: an early embryo is split in vitro so that both parts, when transferred to a uterus, can develop into individual organisms genetically identical to each other. In the cloning debate, however, the term ‘cloning’ typically refers to a technique called somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). SCNT involves transferring the nucleus of a somatic cell into an oocyte from which the nucleus and thus most of the DNA has been removed. (The mitochondrial DNA in the cytoplasm is still present). The manipulated oocyte is then treated with an electric current in order to stimulate cell division, resulting in the formation of an embryo. The embryo is (virtually) genetically identical to, and thus a clone of the somatic cell donor.

Dolly was the first mammal to be brought into the world using SCNT. Ian Wilmut and his team at the Roslin Institute in Scotland replaced the nucleus from an oocyte taken from a Blackface ewe with the nucleus of a cell from the mammary gland of a six-year old Finn Dorset sheep (these sheep have a white face). They transferred the resulting embryo into the uterus of a surrogate ewe and approximately five months later Dolly was born. Dolly had a white face: she was genetically identical to the Finn Dorset ewe from which the somatic cell had been obtained.

Dolly, however, was not 100% genetically identical to the donor animal. Genetic material comes from two sources: the nucleus and the mitochondria of a cell. Mitochondria are organelles that serve as power sources to the cell. They contain short segments of DNA. In Dolly’s case, her nuclear DNA was the same as the donor animal; other of her genetic materials came from the mitochondria in the cytoplasm of the enucleated oocyte. For the clone and the donor animal to be exact genetic copies, the oocyte too would have to come from the donor animal (or from the same maternal line – mitochondria are passed on by oocytes).

Dolly’s birth was a real breakthrough, for it proved that something that had been considered biologically impossible could indeed be done. Before Dolly, scientists thought that cell differentiation was irreversible: they believed that, once a cell has differentiated into a specialized body cell, such as a skin or liver cell, the process cannot be reversed. What Dolly demonstrated was that it is possible to take a differentiated cell, turn back its biological clock, and make the cell behave as though it was a recently fertilized egg.

Nuclear transfer can also be done using a donor cell from an embryo instead of from an organism after birth. Cloning mammals using embryonic cells has been successful since the mid-1980s (for a history of cloning, see Wilmut et al. 2001). Another technique to produce genetically identical offspring or clones is embryo twinning or embryo splitting, in which an early embryo is split in vitro so that both parts, when implanted in the uterus, can develop into individual organisms genetically identical to each other. This process occurs naturally with identical twins.

However, what many people find disturbing is the idea of creating a genetic duplicate of an existing person, or a person who has existed. That is why the potential application of SCNT in humans set off a storm of controversy. Another way to produce a genetic duplicate from an existing person is by cryopreserving one of two genetically identical embryos created in vitro for several years or decades before using it to generate a pregnancy. Lastly, reproductive cloning of humans could, in theory, also be achieved by combining the induced pluripotent stem cell technique with tetraploid complementation. Several research teams have succeeded in cloning mice this way (see, for example, Boland et al. 2009). The technique involves injecting mouse iPS cells in tetraploid embryos, i.e. embryos with twice the normal number of chromosomes that cannot result in live offspring. The resulting mouse pups are derived solely from the iPS cells, which means that the tetraploid embryos only acted as a substitute trophectoderm, which forms the placenta and other nourishing membranes but which does not contribute to the ‘embryo proper’.

Dolly is a case of reproductive cloning, the aim of which is to create offspring. Reproductive cloning is to be distinguished from cloning for therapy and research, sometimes also referred to as ‘therapeutic cloning’. Both reproductive cloning and cloning for research and therapy involve SCNT, but their aims, as well as most of the ethical concerns they raise, differ. I will first discuss cloning for research and therapy and will then proceed to outline the ethical debate surrounding reproductive cloning.

2. Cloning for Research and Therapy

Cloning for research and therapy involves the creation of an embryo via SCNT, but instead of transferring the cloned embryo to the uterus in order to generate a pregnancy, it is used to obtain pluripotent stem cells. It is thus not the intention to use the embryo for reproductive purposes. Embryonic stem cells offer powerful tools for developing therapies for currently incurable diseases and conditions, for important biomedical research, and for drug discovery and toxicity testing (Cervera & Stojkovic 2007). For example, one therapeutic approach is to induce embryonic stem cells to differentiate into cardiomyocytes (heart muscle cells) to repair or replace damaged heart tissue, into insulin-producing cells to treat diabetes, or into neurons and their supporting tissues to repair spinal cord injuries.

A potential problem with embryonic stem cells is that they will normally not be genetically identical to the patient. Embryonic stem cells are typically derived from embryos donated for research after in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment. Because these stem cells would have a genetic identity different from that of the recipient – the patient – they may, when used in therapy, be rejected by her immune system. Immunorejection can occur when the recipient’s body does not recognize the transplanted cells, tissues or organs as its own and as a defense mechanism attempts to destroy the graft. Another type of immunorejection involves a condition called graft-versus-host disease, in which immune cells contaminating the graft recognize the new host – the patient – as foreign and attack the host’s tissues and organs. Both types of immunorejection can result in loss of the graft or death of the patient. It is one of the most serious problems faced in transplant surgery.

Cloning for research and therapy could potentially offer a solution to this problem. An embryo produced via SNCT using the patient’s somatic cell as a donor cell would be virtually genetically identical to the patient. Stem cells obtained from that embryo would thus also be genetically identical to the patient, as would be their derivatives, and would be less likely to be rejected after transplantation. Though therapies using embryonic stem cells from SCNT embryos are not yet on the horizon for humans, scientists have provided proof of concept for these therapies in the mouse.

Embryonic stem cells from cloned embryos would also have significant advantages for biomedical research, and for drug discovery and toxicity testing. Embryonic stem cells genetically identical to the patient could provide valuable in vitro models to study disease, especially where animal models are not available, where the research cannot be done in patients themselves because it would be too invasive, or where there are too few patients to work with (as in the case of rare genetic diseases). Researchers could, for example, create large numbers of embryonic stem cells genetically identical to the patient and then experiment on these in order to understand the particular features of the disease in that person. The embryonic stem cells and their derivatives could also be used to test potential treatments. They could, for example, be used to test candidate drug therapies to predict their likely toxicity. This would avoid dangerous exposure of patients to sometimes highly experimental drugs.

Cloning for research and therapy is, however, still in its infancy stages. In 2011, a team of scientists from the New York Stem Cell Foundation Laboratory was the first to have succeeded in creating two embryonic stem cell lines from human embryos produced through SCNT (Noggle et al. 2011). Three years earlier, a small San Diego biotechnological company created human embryos (at the blastocyst stage) via SCNT but did not succeed in deriving embryonic stem cells from these cells (French et al. 2008). Cloning for research and therapy is thus not likely to bear fruit in the short term though progress is made (Tachibana et al. 2013; Zhang et al. 2020). Apart from unsolved technical difficulties, much more basic research in embryonic stem cell research is needed. The term ‘therapeutic cloning’ has been criticized precisely for this reason. It suggests that therapy using embryonic stem cells from cloned embryos is already reality. In the phase before clinical trials, critics say, it is only reasonable to refer to research on nuclear transfer as ‘research cloning’ or ‘cloning for biomedical research’ (PCBE, 2002).

Cloning for research and therapy holds great potential for future research and therapeutic applications, but it also raises various ethical concerns.

Much of the debate about the ethics of cloning for research and therapy turns on a basic disagreement about how we should treat early human embryos. As it is currently done, the isolation of embryonic stem cells involves the destruction of embryos at the blastocyst stage (day five after fertilization, when the embryo consists of 125–225 cells). But cloning for research and therapy not only involves the destruction of embryos, it also involves the creation of embryos solely for the purpose of stem cell derivation. Views on whether and when it is permissible to create embryos solely to obtain stem cells differ profoundly.

Some believe that an embryo, from the moment of conception, has the same moral status, that is, the same set of basic moral rights, claims or interests as an ordinary adult human being. This view is sometimes expressed by saying that the early embryo is a person. On this view, creating and killing embryos for stem cells is a serious moral wrong. It is impermissible, even if it could save many lives (Deckers 2007). Others believe that the early embryo is merely a cluster of cells or human tissue lacking any moral status. A common view among those who hold this position is that, given its promising potential, embryonic stem cell and cloning research is a moral imperative (Devolder & Savulescu 2006). Many defend a view somewhere in between these opposing positions. They believe, for example, that the early embryo should be treated with respect because it has an intermediate moral status: a moral status lower than that of a person but higher than that of an ordinary body cell. A popular view amongst those who hold this position is that using embryos for research might sometimes be justified. Respect can be demonstrated, it is typically argued, by using embryos only for very important research that cannot be done using less controversial means, and by acknowledging the use of embryos for research with a sense of regret or loss (Robertson 1995; Steinbock 2001). One common view among those who hold the intermediate moral status view is that the use of discarded IVF embryos to obtain stem cells is compatible with the respect we owe to the embryo, whereas the creation and use of cloned embryos is not. An argument underlying this view is that, unlike IVF embryos, cloned embryos are created for instrumental use only; they are created and treated as a mere means, which some regard as incompatible with respectful treatment of the embryo (NBAC 1999). Others (both proponents and opponents of embryo research) have denied that there is a significant moral difference between using discarded IVF embryos and cloned embryos as a source of stem cells. They have argued that if killing embryos for research is wrong, it is wrong regardless of the embryo’s origin (Doerflinger 1999; Fitzpatrick 2003; Devolder 2005, 2015). Douglas and Savulescu (2009) have argued that it is permissible to destroy ‘unwanted’ embryos in research, that is, embryos that no one wishes to use for reproductive purposes. Since both discarded IVF embryos and cloned embryos created for the purpose of stem cell derivation are unwanted embryos in that sense, it is, on their view, permissible to use both types of embryos for research.

A less common view holds that obtaining stem cells from cloned embryos poses fewer ethical problems than obtaining stem cells from discarded IVF embryos. Hansen (2002) has advanced this view, arguing that embryos resulting from SCNT do not have the same moral status we normally accord to other embryos: he calls the combination of a somatic nucleus and an enucleated egg a “transnuclear egg”, which, he says, is a mere “artifact” with no “natural purpose” or potential “to evolve into an embryo and eventually a human being,” and therefore falls outside the category of human beings. McHugh (2004) and Kiessling (2001) advance a similar argument. On their view, obtaining stem cells from cloned embryos is less morally problematic because embryos resulting from SCNT cannot (yet) develop further, and are thus better thought of as tissue culture, whereas IVF represents instrumental support for human reproduction. Since creating offspring is not the goal, they argue, it is misleading to use the term ‘embryo’ or ‘zygote’ to refer to the product of SCNT. They suggest to instead use the terms ‘clonote’ (Mc Hugh) and ‘ovasome’ (Kiessling).

Cloning for research and therapy requires a large number of high-quality donor oocytes. Ethical issues arise regarding how these oocytes could be obtained. Oocyte donation involves various risks and discomforts (for a review of the risks, see Committee on Assessing the Medical Risks of Human Oocyte Donation for Stem Cell Research , 2007). Among the most pressing ethical issues raised by participating in such donation is what model of informed consent should be applied. Unlike women who are considering IVF, non-medical oocyte donors are not clinical patients. They do not stand to derive any reproductive or medical benefit themselves from the donation (though Kalfoglou & Gittelsohn, 2000, argue that they may derive a psychological benefit). Magnus and Cho (2005) have argued that donating women should not be classified as research subjects since, unlike in other research, the risks to the donor do not lie in the research itself but in the procurement of the materials required for the research. They suggest that a new category named ‘research donors’ be created for those who expose themselves to substantial risk only for the benefit of others (in this case unidentifiable people in the future) and where the risk is incurred not in the actual research but in the procurement of the materials for the research. Informed consent for altruistic organ donation by living donors to strangers has also been suggested as a model, since, in both cases, the benefits will be for strangers and not for the donor. Critics of this latter suggestion have pointed out, however, that there is a disanalogy between these two types of donation. The general ethical rule reflected in regulations concerning altruistic donation, namely that there must be a high chance of a good outcome for the patient, is violated in the case of oocyte donation for cloning research (George 2007).

Given the risks to the donor, the absence of direct medical benefit for the donor, and the uncertain potential of cloning research, it is not surprising that the number of altruistic oocyte donations for such research is very low. Financial incentives might be needed to increase the supply of oocytes for cloning research. In some countries, including the US, selling and buying oocytes is legal. Some object to these practices because they consider oocytes as integral to the body and think they should be kept out of the market: on their view, the value of the human body and its parts should not be expressed in terms of money or other fungible goods. Some also worry that, through commercialization of oocytes, women themselves may become objects of instrumental use (Alpers &Lo 1995). Many agree, however, that a concern for commodification does not justify a complete ban on payment of oocyte donors and that justice requires that they be financially compensated for the inconvenience, burden, and medical risk they endure, as is standard for other research subjects (Steinbock 2004; Mertes &Pennings 2007). A related concern is the effect of financial or other offers of compensation on the voluntariness of oocyte donation. Women, especially economically disadvantaged women from developing countries, might be unduly induced or even coerced into selling their oocytes (Dickinson 2002). Baylis and McLeod (2007) have highlighted how difficult it is concomitantly to avoid both undue inducement and exploitation: a price that is too low risks exploitation; a price that avoids exploitation risks undue inducement.

Concerns about exploitation are not limited to concerns about payment, as became clear in the ‘Hwang scandal’ (for a review, see Saunders & Savulescu 2008). In 2004, Woo-Suk-Hwang, a leading Korean stem cell scientist, claimed to be the first to clone human embryos using SCNT and to extract stem cells from these embryos. In addition to finding that Hwang had fabricated many of his research results, Korea’s National Bioethics Committee also found that Hwang had pressured junior members of his lab to donate oocytes for his cloning experiments.

Some authors have argued that a regulated market in oocytes could minimize ethical concerns raised by the commercialization of oocytes and could be consistent with respect for women (Resnik 2001; Gruen 2007). Researchers are also investigating the use of alternative sources of oocytes, including animal oocytes, fetal oocytes, oocytes from adult ovaries obtained post mortem or during operation, and stem cell-derived oocytes. Scientists have already succeeded in creating human oocytes from embryonic stem cells (Ma et al. 2017; Saitou & Miyauchi 2016). Finally, another option is ‘egg-sharing’ where couples who are undergoing IVF for reproductive purposes have the option to donate one or two of their oocytes in return for a reduced fee for their fertility treatment. The advantage of this system is that it avoids exposing women to extra risks – these women were undergoing IVF in any case (Roberts & Throsby 2008).

Personalized cloning therapies are likely to be labor intensive and expensive. This has raised social justice concerns. Perhaps cloning therapies will only be a realistic option for the very rich? Some have replied to this concern by pointing out that Cloning therapies may become cheaper, less labor intensive and more widely accessible after time. Moreover, cloning may cure diseases and not only treat symptoms. Regardless of the economic cost, it remains true of course that the cloning procedure is time consuming, rendering it inappropriate for certain clinical applications where urgent intervention is required (e.g., myocardial infarction, acute liver failure or traumatic or infectious spinal cord damage). If cloning for therapy became available, its application would thus likely be restricted to chronic conditions. Wilmut (1997), who cloned Dolly, has suggested that cloning treatments could be targeted to maximize benefit: an older person with heart disease could be treated with stem cells that are not a genetic match, take drugs to suppress her immune system for the rest of her life, and live with the side-effects; a younger person might benefit from stem cells from cloned embryos that match exactly. Devolder and Savulescu (2006) have argued that objections about economic cost are most forceful against ‘cloning for self-transplantation’ than, for example, against cloning for developing cellular models of human disease. The latter will enable research into human diseases and may result in affordable therapies and cures for a variety of common diseases, such as cancer and heart disease, which afflict people all over the world. Finally, some have pointed out that it is not clear whether cloning research is necessarily more labor intensive than experiments on cells and tissues now done in animals.

Some are skeptical about the claimed benefits of cloning for research and therapy. They stress that for many diseases in which cloned embryonic stem cells might offer a therapy, there are alternative treatments and/or preventive measures in development, including gene therapy, pharmacogenomical solutions and treatments based on nanotechnology. It is often claimed that other types of stem cells such as adult stem cells and stem cells from the umbilical cord blood might enable us to achieve the same aims as cloning. Especially induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) have raised the hope that cloning research is superfluous (Rao & Condic 2008). iPSCs are created through genetic manipulation of a body cell. iPSCs are similar to embryonic stem cells, and in particular to embryonic stem cells from cloned embryos. However, iPSC research could provide tissue- and patient-specific cells without relying on the need for human oocytes or the creation and destruction of embryos. iPSC research could thus avoid the ethical issues raised by cloning. This promise notwithstanding, scientists have warned that it would be premature to stop cloning research as iPSCs are not identical to embryonic stem cells (Pera & Trounson 2013). Cloning research may teach us things that iPSC research cannot teach us. Moreover, iPSC research has been said to fail to completely avoid the issue of embryo destruction (Brown 2009, Devolder 2015).

Slippery slope arguments express the worry that permitting a certain practice may place us on a slippery slope to a dangerous or otherwise unacceptable outcome. Several commentators have argued that accepting or allowing cloning research is the first step that would place us on a slippery slope to reproductive cloning. As Leon Kass (1998, 702) has put it: “once the genies put the cloned embryos into the bottles, who can strictly control where they go?”

Others are more skeptical about slippery slope arguments against cloning and think that effective legislation can prevent us from sliding down the slope (Savulescu 1999; Devolder & Savulescu 2006). If reproductive cloning is unacceptable, these critics say, it is reasonable to prohibit this specific technology rather than to ban non-reproductive applications of cloning. The UK and Belgium, for example, allow cloning research but prohibit the transfer of cloned embryos to the uterus.

Apart from the question of how slippery the slope might be, another question raised by such arguments concerns the feared development –reproductive cloning– and whether it is really ethically objectionable. Profound disagreement exists about the answer to this question.

3. Human Reproductive Cloning

The central argument in favor of reproductive cloning is expansion of opportunities for reproduction. Reproductive cloning could offer a new means for prospective parents to satisfy their reproductive goals or desires. Infertile individuals or couples could have a child that is genetically related to them. In addition, individuals, same sex couples, or couples who cannot together produce an embryo would no longer need donor gametes to reproduce if cloning were available (some might still need donor eggs for the cloning procedure, but these would be enucleated so that only the mitochondrial DNA remains). It would then be possible to avoid that one’s child shares half of her nuclear DNA with a gamete donor.

Using cloning to help infertile people to have a genetically related child, or a child that is only genetically related to them, has been defended on the grounds of human wellbeing, personal autonomy, and the satisfaction of the natural inclination to produce offspring (Häyry 2003; Strong 2008). Offering individuals or couples the possibility to reproduce using cloning technology has been said to be consistent with the right to reproductive freedom, which, according to some, implies the right to choose what kind of children we will have (Brock 1998, 145).

According to some, the main benefit of reproductive cloning is that it would enable prospective parents to control what genome their children will be endowed with (Fletcher 1988, Harris 1997, 2004; Pence 1998, 101–6; Tooley 1998). Cloning would enable parents to have a child with a genome identical to that of a person with good health and/or other desirable characteristics.

Another possible use of reproductive cloning is to create a child that is a tissue match for a sick sibling. The stem cells from the umbilical cord blood or from the bone marrow of the cloned child could be used to treat the diseased sibling. Such ‘saviour siblings’, have already been created through sexual reproduction or, more efficiently, through a combination of IVF, preimplantation genetic diagnosis and HLA testing.

Many people, however, have expressed concerns about human reproductive cloning. For some, these concerns are sufficient to reject human cloning. For others, these concerns should be weighed against reasons for reproductive cloning.

What follows is an outline of some of the main areas of concern and disagreement about human reproductive cloning.

Despite the successful creation of viable offspring via SCNT in various mammalian species, researchers still have limited understanding of how the technique works on the subcellular and molecular level. Although the overall efficiency and safety of reproductive cloning in mammals has significantly increased over the past fifteen years, it is not yet a safe process (Whitworth & Prather 2010). For example, the rate of abortions, stillbirths and developmental abnormalities remains high. Another source of concern is the risk of premature ageing because of shortened telomeres. Telomeres are repetitive DNA sequences at the tip of chromosomes that get shorter as an animal gets older. When the telomeres of a cell get so short that they disappear, the cell dies. The concern is that cloned animals may inherit the shortened telomeres from their older progenitor, with possibly premature aging and a shortened lifespan as a result.

For many, the fact that reproductive cloning is unsafe provides a sufficient reason not to pursue it. It has been argued that it would simply be wrong to impose such significant health risks on humans. The strongest version of this argument states that it would be wrong now to produce a child using SCNT because it would constitute a case of wrongful procreation. Some adopt a consent-based objection and condemn cloning because the person conceived cannot consent to being exposed to significant risks involved in the procedure (Kass 1998; PCBE 2002). Against this, it has been argued that even if reproductive cloning is unsafe, it may still be permissible if there are no safer means to bring that very same child into existence so long as the child is expected to have a life worth living (Strong 2005).

With the actual rate of advancement in cloning, one cannot exclude a future in which the safety and efficiency of SCNT will be comparable or superior to that of IVF or even sexual reproduction. A remaining question is, then, whether those who condemn cloning because of its experimental nature should continue to condemn it morally and legally. Some authors have reasoned that if, in the future, cloning becomes safer than sexual reproduction, we should even make it our reproductive method of choice (Fletcher 1988; Harris 2004, Ch. 4).

3.2.1 A Threat to Autonomy

Some fear that cloning threatens the identity and individuality of the clone, thus reducing her autonomy (Ramsey 1966; Kitcher 1997; Annas 1998; Kass 1998). This may be bad in itself, or bad because it might reduce the clone’s wellbeing. It may also be bad because it will severely restrict the array of life plans open to the clone, thus violating her ‘right to an open future’ (a concept developed in Feinberg 1980). In its report ‘Human Cloning and Human Dignity: An Ethical Inquiry’, the US President’s Council on Bioethics (2002) wrote that being genetically unique is “an emblem of independence and individuality” and allows us to go forward “with a relatively indeterminate future in front of us” (Ch. 5, Section c). Such concerns have formed the basis of strong opposition to cloning.

The concern that cloning threatens the clone’s identity and individuality has been criticized for relying on the mistaken belief that who and what we become is entirely determined by our genes. Such genetic determinism is clearly false. Though genes influence our personal development, so does the complex and irreproducible context in which our lives take place. We know this, among others, from studying monozygotic twins. Notwithstanding the fact that such twins are genetically identical to each other and, therefore, sometimes look very similar and often share many character traits, habits and preferences, they are different individuals, with different identities (Segal 2000). Thus, it is argued, having a genetic duplicate does not threaten one’s individuality, or one’s distinct identity.

Brock (2002) has pointed out that one could nevertheless argue that even though individuals created through cloning would be unique individuals with a distinct identity, they might not experience it that way. What is threatened by cloning then is not the individual’s identity or individuality, but her sense of identity and individuality, and this may reduce her autonomy. So even if a clone has a unique identity, she may experience more difficulties in establishing her identity than if she had not been a clone.

But here too critics have relied on the comparison with monozygotic twins. Harris (1997, 2004) and Tooley (1998), for example, have pointed out that each twin not only has a distinct identity, but generally also views him or herself as having a distinct identity, as do their relatives and friends. Moreover, so they argue, an individual created through cloning would likely be of a different age than her progenitor. There may even be several generations between them. A clone would thus in essence be a ‘delayed’ twin. Presumably this would make it even easier for the clone to view herself as distinct from the progenitor than if she had been genetically identical to someone her same age.

However, the reference to twins as a model to think about reproductive cloning has been criticized, for example, because it fails to reflect important aspects of the parent-child relationship that would incur if the child were a clone of one of the rearing parents (Jonas 1974; Levick 2004). Because of the dominance of the progenitor, the risk of reduced autonomy and confused identity may be greater in such a situation than in the case of ordinary twins. Moreover, just because the clone would be a delayed twin, she may have the feeling that her life has already been lived or that she is predetermined to do the same things as her progenitor (Levy & Lotz 2005). This problem may be exacerbated by others constantly comparing her life with that of the progenitor, and having problematic expectations based on these comparisons. The clone may feel under constant pressure to live up to these expectations (Kass 1998; Levick 2004, 101; Sandel 2007, 57–62), or may have the feeling she leads ‘a life in the shadow’ of the progenitor (Holm 1998; PCBE 2002, Ch.5). This may especially be the case if the clone was created as a ‘replacement’ for a deceased child. (Some private companies already offer to clone dead pets to create replacements pets.) The fear is that the ‘ghost of the dead child’ will get more attention and devotion than the replacement child. Parents may expect the clone to be like the lost child, or some idealized image of it, which could hamper the development of her identity and adversely affect her self-esteem (Levick 2004, 111–132). Finally, another reason why the clone’s autonomy may be reduced is because she would be involuntarily informed about her genetic predispositions. A clone who knows that her genetic parent developed a severe single gene disease at the age of forty will realise it is very likely that she will undergo the same fate. Unlike individuals who choose to have themselves genetically tested, clones who know their genetic parent’s medical history will be involuntarily informed.

These concerns have been challenged on several grounds. Some believe that it is plausible that, through adequate information, we could largely correct mistaken beliefs about the link between genetic and personal identity, and thus reduce the risk of problematic expectations toward the clone (Harris 1997, 2004; Tooley 1998, 84–5; Brock 1998, Pence 1998). Brock (1998) and Buchanan et al. (2000, 198) have argued that even if people persist in these mistaken beliefs and their attitudes or actions lead to cloned individuals believing they do not have an open future, this does not imply that the clone’s right to ignorance about one’s personal future or to an open future has actually been violated. Pence (1998, 138) has argued that having high expectations, even if based on false beliefs, is not necessarily a bad thing. Parents with high expectations often give their children the best chances to lead a happy and successful life. Brock (2002, 316) has argued that parents now also constantly restrict the array of available life plans open to their children, for example, by selecting their school or by raising them according to certain values. Though this may somewhat restrict the child’s autonomy, there will always be enough decisions to take for the child to be autonomous, and to realize this. According to Brock, it is not clear why this should be different in the case of cloning. He also points out that there may be advantages to being a ‘delayed twin’ (154). For example, one may acquire knowledge about the progenitor’s medical history and use this knowledge to live longer, or to increase one’s autonomy. One could, for example, use the information to reduce the risk of getting the disease or condition, or to at least postpone its onset, by behavioral changes, an appropriate diet and/or preventive medication. This would not be possible, however, if the disease is untreatable (for example, Huntington’s Disease). Harris (2004, Ch.1) has stressed that information about one’s genetic predispositions for certain diseases would also allow one to take better informed reproductive decisions. Cloning would allow us to give our child a ‘tried and tested’ genome, not one created by the genetic lottery of sexual reproduction and the random combination of chromosomes.

3.2.2 The clone will be treated as a means

Cloning arouses people’s imagination about the clone, but also about those who will choose to have a child through cloning. Often dubious motives are ascribed to them: they would want a child that is ‘just like so-and-so’ causing people to view children as objects or as commodities like a new car or a new house (Putnam 1997, 7–8). They would want an attractive child (a clone of Scarlett Johansson) or a child with tennis talent (a clone of Victoria Azarenka) purely to show off. Dictators would want armies of clones to achieve their political goals. People would clone themselves out of vanity. Parents would clone their existing child so that the clone can serve as an organ bank for that child, or would clone their deceased child to have a replacement child. The conclusion is then that cloning is wrong because the clone will be used as a mere means to others’ ends. These critiques have also been expressed with regard to other forms of assisted reproduction; but some worry that individuals created through cloning may be more likely to be viewed as commodities because their total genetic blueprint would be chosen – they would be “fully made and not begotten” (Ramsey 1966; Kass 1998; PCBE 2002, 107).

Strong (2008) has argued that these concerns are based on a fallacious inference. It is one thing to desire genetically related children, and something else to believe that one owns one’s children or that one considers one’s children as objects, he writes. Other commentators, however, have pointed out that even if parents themselves do not commodify their children, cloning might still have an impact on society as a whole, thereby increasing the tendency of others to do so (Levy & Lotz 2005; Sandel 2007). A related concern expressed by Levick (2004, 184–5) is that allowing cloning might result in a society where ‘production on demand’ clones are sold for adoption to people who are seeking to have children with special abilities – a clearer case of treating children as objects.

But suppose some people create a clone for instrumental reasons, for example, as a stem cell donor for a sick sibling. Does this imply that the clone will be treated merely as a means? Critics of this argument have pointed out that parents have children for all kinds of instrumental reasons, including the benefit for the husband-wife relationship, continuity of the family name, and the economic and psychological benefits children provide when their parents become old (Harris 2004, 41–2, Pence 1998). This is generally not considered problematic as long as the child is also valued in its own right. What is most important in a parent-child relationship is the love and care inherent in that relationship. They stress the fact that we judge people on their attitudes toward children, rather than on their motives for having them. They also deny that there is a strong link between one’s intention or motive to have a child, and the way one will treat the child.

3.2.3 Societal Prejudice and Respect for Clones

Another concern is that clones may be the victims of unjustified discrimination and will not be respected as persons (Deech 1999; Levick 2004, 185–187). Savulescu (2005, Other Internet Resources) has referred to such negative attitudes towards clones as ‘clonism’: a new form of discrimination against a group of humans who are different in a non-morally significant way. But does a fear for ‘clonism’ constitute a good reason for rejecting cloning? Savulescu and others have argued that, if it is, then we must conclude that racist attitudes and discriminatory behavior towards people with a certain ethnicity provides a good reason for people with that ethnicity not to procreate. This, according to these critics, is a morally objectionable way to solve the problem of racism. Instead of limiting people’s procreative liberty we should combat existing prejudices and discrimination. Likewise, it is argued, instead of prohibiting cloning out of concern for clonism, we should combat possible prejudices and discrimination against clones (see also Pence 1998, 46; Harris 2004, 92–93). Macintosh (2005, 119–21) has warned that by expressing certain concerns about cloning one may actually reinforce certain prejudices and misguided stereotypes about clones. For example, saying that a clone would not have a personal identity prejudges the clone as inferior or fraudulent (the idea that originals are more valuable than their copies) or even less than human (as individuality is seen as an essential characteristic of human nature).

3.2.4 Complex Family Relationships

Some worry that cloning will threaten traditional family structures; a fear that has come up in debates about gay people adopting children, IVF and other assisted reproduction techniques. But in cloning the situation would be more complex as it may blur generational boundaries (McGee 2000) and the clone would likely be confused about her kinship ties (Kass 1998; O’Neil 2002, 67–68). For example, a woman who has a child conceived through cloning would actually be the twin of her child and the woman’s mother would, genetically, be its mother, not grandmother. Some have argued against these concerns, replying that a cloned child would not necessarily be more confused about her family ties than other children. Many have four nurturing parents because of a divorce, never knew their genetic parents, have nurturing parents that are not their genetic parents, or think that their nurturing father is also their genetic father when in fact he is not. While these complex family relationships can be troubling for some children, they are not insurmountable, critics say. Harris (2004, 77–78) argues that there are many aspects about the situation one is born and raised in that may be troublesome. As with all children, the most important thing is the relation with people who nurture and educate them, and children usually know very well who these people are. There is no reason to believe that with cloning, this will be any different. Onora O’Neil (2002, 67–8) argues that such responses are misplaced. While she acknowledges that there are already children now with confused family relationships, she argues that it is very different when prospective parents seek such potentially confused relationships for their children from the start.

Other concerns related to cloning focus on the potential harmful effects of cloning for others. Sometimes these concerns are related to those about the wellbeing of the clone. For example, McGee’s concern about confused family relationships not only bears on the clone but also on society as a whole. However, since I have already mentioned this concern, I will, in the remainder of this entry, focus on other arguments

3.3.1 Adoption and the Importance of Genetic Links

It is often claimed that the strongest reason for why reproductive cloning should be permissible, if safe, is that it will allow infertile people to have a genetically related child. This position relies on the view that having genetically related children is morally significant and valuable. This is a controversial view. For example, Levy and Lotz (2005) and Rulli (2016) have denied the importance of a genetic link between parents and their children. Moreover, they have argued that claiming that this link is important will give rise to bad consequences, such as reduced adoption rates (and, in Rulli’s case, a failure to fulfil one’s duty to adopt) and diminished resources for improving the life prospects of the disadvantaged, including those waiting to be adopted. Levick (2004, 185) and Ahlberg and Brighouse (2011) have also advanced this view. Since, according to these authors, these undesirable consequences would be magnified if we allowed human cloning, we have good reason to prohibit it. In response, Strong (2008) has argued that this effect is uncertain, and that there are other, probably more effective, ways to help such children or to prevent them from ending up in such a situation. Moreover, if cloning is banned, infertile couples may make use of donor embryos or gametes rather than adoption. Rob Sparrow (2006) has pointed out another potential problem for those who defend reproductive cloning for the reason that it will overcome infertility by providing a genetically related child. According to Sparrow, cloning just doesn’t provide the right sort of genetic relation to make those who use the technology the parents of the child.So, in order to justify reproductive cloning one then has to emphasise the importance of the intention with which the parents bring the cloned child into the world, rather than the genetic relationship with the child. And this emphasis works to undermine the justification for reproductive cloning in the first place.

3.3.2 Genetic Diversity

Another concern is that because cloning is an asexual way of reproducing it would decrease genetic variation among offspring and, in the long run, might even constitute a threat to the human race. The gene pool may narrow sufficiently to threaten humanity’s resistance to disease (AMA 1999, 6). In response, it has been argued that if cloning becomes possible, the number of people who will choose it as their mode of reproduction will very likely be too low to constitute a threat to genetic diversity. It would be unlikely to be higher than the rate of natural twinning, which, occurring at a rate of 3.5/1000 children, does not seriously impact on genetic diversity. Further, even if millions of people would create children through cloning, the same genomes will not be cloned over and over: each person would have a genetic copy of his or her genome, which means the result will still be a high diversity of genomes. Others argue that, even if genetic diversity were not diminished by cloning, a society that supports reproductive cloning might be taken to express the view that variety is not important. Conveying such a message, these authors say, could have harmful consequences for society.

3.3.3 Eugenics

Some see the increase in control of what kind of genome we want to pass on to our children as a positive development. A major concern, however, is that this shift ‘from chance to choice’ will lead to problematic eugenic practices.

One version of this concern states that cloning would, from the outset, constitute a problematic form of eugenics. However, critics have argued that this is implausible: the best explanations of what was wrong with immoral cases of eugenics, such as the Nazi eugenic programs, are that they involved coercion and were motivated by objectionable moral beliefs or false non-moral beliefs. This would not necessarily be the case were cloning to be implemented now (Agar 2004; Buchanan 2007). Unlike the coercive and state-directed eugenics of the past, new ‘liberal eugenics’ defends values such as autonomy, reproductive freedom, beneficence, empathy and the avoidance of harm (Agar, 2004). Enthusiasts of so-called ‘liberal eugenics’ are interested in helping individuals to prevent or diminish the suffering and increase the well-being of their children by endowing them with certain genes.

Another version of the eugenics concern points out the risk of a slippery slope: the claim is that cloning will lead to objectionable forms of eugenics—for example, coercive eugenics—in the future. After all, historical cases of immoral eugenics often developed from earlier well intentioned and less problematic practices (for a history of eugenics as well as an analysis of philosophical and political issues raised by eugenics, see Kevles 1985 and Paul 1995). According to Sandel (2007, Ch.5), for example, ‘liberal eugenics’ might imply more state compulsion than first appears: just as governments can force children to go to school, they could require people to use genetics to have ‘better’ children.

A related concern expressed by Sandel (2007, 52–7) is that cloning, and enhancement technologies in general, may result in a society in which parents will not accept their child for what it is, reinforcing an already existing trend of heavily managed, high-pressure child-rearing or ‘hyper-parenting’. Asch and Wasserman (2005, 202) have expressed a similar concern; arguing that having more control over what features a child has can pose an “affront to an ideal of unconditioned devotion”. Another concern, most often expressed by disability rights advocates, is that if cloning is used to have ‘better’ children, it may create a more intolerant climate towards those with a disability or a serious disease, and that such practices can express negative judgments about people with disabilities. This argument has also been advanced in the debate about selective abortion, prenatal testing, and preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Disagreement exists about whether these effects are likely. For example, Buchanan et al. (2002, 278) have argued that one can devalue disability while valuing existing disabled people and that trying to help parents who want to avoid having a disabled child does not imply that society should make no efforts to increase accessibility for existing people with disabilities.

UNESCO’s Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights (1997) was the first international instrument to condemn human reproductive cloning as a practice against human dignity. Article 11 of this Declaration states: “ Practices which are contrary to human dignity, such as reproductive cloning of human beings, shall not be permitted… ” This position is shared by the World Health Organization, the European Parliament and several other international instruments. Critics have pointed out that the reference to human dignity is problematic as it is rarely specified how human dignity is to be understood, whose dignity is at stake, and how dignity is relevant to the ethics of cloning (Harris 2004, Ch.2, Birnbacher 2005, McDougall 2008,). Some commentators state that it is the copying of a genome which violates human dignity (Kass 1998); others have pointed out that this interpretation could be experienced as an offence to genetically identical twins, and that we typically do not regard twins as a threat to human dignity (although some societies in the past did), nor do we prevent twins from coming into existence. On the contrary, IVF, which involves an increased ‘risk’ of having twins, is a widely accepted fertility treatment.

Human dignity is most often related to Kant’s second formulation of the Categorical Imperative, namely the idea that we should never use a person merely as a means to an end. I have, however, already discussed this concern in section 4.2.2.

No unified religious perspective on human cloning exists; indeed, there are a diversity of opinions within each individual religious tradition. For an overview of the evaluation of cloning by the main religious groups see, for example, Cole-Turner (1997) and Walters (2004). For a specifically Jewish perspective on cloning, see, for example, Lipschutz (1999), for an Islamic perspective, Sadeghi (2007) and for a Catholic perspective, Doerflinger (1999).

• Agar, N., 2004, Liberal Eugenics: In Defense of Human Enhancement , Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
• Ahlberg, J. and Brighouse, H., 2011, “An argument against cloning,” Canadian Journal of Philosophy , 40(4): 539–566.
• Alpers, A. and Lo, B., 1995, “Commodification and commercialization in human embryo research,” Stanford Law & Policy Review , 6(2): 39–46.
• American Medical Association, AMA, (1999), Report of the Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs , American Medical Association.
• Annas, G., 1998, “The prospect of human cloning: an opportunity for national and international cooperation,” in Human Cloning: Biomedical Ethical Reviews , J. Humber and R. Almeder (eds.), New Jersey: Humana Press.
• Asch, A. and Wasserman, D., 2005, “Where is the sin in synecdoche,” in Quality of life and human difference: genetic testing, health care , and disability , D. Wasserman, R.S. Wachbroit, and J.E. Bickenbach (eds.), New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Baylis, F., and C. McLeod, 2007, “The stem cell debate continues: the buying and selling of eggs for research,” Journal of Medical Ethics , 33(12): 726–731.
• Birnbacher, D., 2005, “Human cloning and human dignity,” Reproductive Biomedicine Online (Supplement), 10: 50–55.
• Boland, M.J., Hazen, J.L., Nazor, K.L., Rodriguez, A.R., Gifford, W., Martin, G., Kupriyanov, S., and Baldwin, K.K., 2009, “Adult mice generated from induced pluripotent stem cells,” Nature , 461(7260): 91–94.
• Brock, D.W., 1998, “Cloning human beings: an assessment of the ethical issues pro and con,” in Facts and Fantasies about Human Cloning , M.C. Nussbaum and C.R. Sunstein (eds.), New York: Norton: 141–164.
• –––, 2002, “Human Cloning and Our Sense of Self, ” Science , 269: 314–316.
• Brown, M.T., 2009, “Moral complicity in induced pluripotent stem cell research,” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal , 19(1): 1–22.
• Buchanan, A., Brock, D.W., Daniels, N., Wikler, D., 2000, From Chance to Choice: Genetics & Justice , New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.
• Buchanan, A., 2007, “Institutions, beliefs and ethics: eugenics as a case study,” Journal of Political Philosophy , 15(1): 22–45.
• Cervera, R.P. and Stojkovic, M., 2007, “Human embryonic stem cell derivation and nuclear transfer: impact on regenerative therapeutics and drug discovery,” Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics , 82(3): 310–315.
• Cole-Turner, R. (ed.), 1997, Human Cloning: Religious Responses , Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.
• Committee on Assessing the Medical Risks of Human Oocyte Donation for Stem Cell Research, 2007, Assessing the Medical Risks of Human Oocyte Donation for Stem Cell Research: Workshop Report , Washington D.C.: The National Academies Press.
• Deckers, J., 2007, “Are those who subscribe to the view that early embryos are persons irrational and inconsistent? A reply to Brock,” Journal of Medical Ethics , 33(2): 102–6.
• Deech, R., 1999, “Human Cloning and public policy,” In The Genetic Revolution and Human Rights , J. Burley (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press: Chapter 4.
• Devolder, K., 2005, “Creating and sacrificing embryos for stem cells,” Journal of Medical Ethics , 31(6): 366–370.
• –––, 2015, The Ethics of Embryonic Stem Cell Research , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Devolder, K. and Savulescu, J., 2006, “The moral imperative to conduct cloning and stem cell research,” Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , 15(1): 7–21.
• Dickinson, D., 2002, “Commodification of human tissue: implications for feminist and development ethics,” Developing World Bioethics , 2(1): 55–63.
• Doerflinger, R.M., 1999, “The ethics of funding embryonic stem cell research: A Catholic viewpoint,” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal , 9(2): 137–150.
• Douglas, T. and Savulescu, J., 2009, “Destroying unwanted embryos in research,” EMBO Reports , 10(4): 307–312.
• Feinberg, J., 1980, “A Child’s Right to an open future,” in Whose Child? Parental Rights, Parental Authority and State Power , W. Aiken (ed.), Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Littlefield: 124–153.
• FitzPatrick, W., 2003, “Surplus embryos, nonreproductive cloning, and the intend/foresee distinction,” Hastings Center Report , 33(3): 29–36.
• Fletcher, J.F., 1988, The Ethics of Genetic Control: Ending Reproductive Roulette , New York: Prometheus.
• French, A.J. et al ., 2008, “Development of human cloned blastocysts following somatic cell nuclear transfer with adult fibroblasts,” Stem Cells , 26(2): 485–93.
• George, K., 2007, “What about the women? Ethical and policy aspects of egg supply for cloning research,” Reproductive BioMedicine Online , 15(2): 127–133.
• Gruen, L., 2007, “Oocytes for sale?,” Metaphilosophy , 38(2–3): 285–308.
• Hansen, J.E., 2002, “Embryonic stem cell production through therapeutic cloning has fewer ethical problems than stem cell harvest from surplus IVF embryos,” Journal of Medical Ethics , 28(2): 86–8.
• Harris, J., 1997, “Goodbye Dolly: The ethics of human cloning,” Journal of Medical Ethics , 23(6): 353–360.
• –––, 2004, On Cloning , London: Routledge.
• Häyry, M., 2003, “Philosophical arguments for and against human reproductive cloning,” Bioethics , 17(5–6): 447–459.
• Holm, S., 1998, “A life in the shadow: one reason why we should not clone humans,” Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , 7: 160–162.
• Jonas, H., 1974, Philosophical Essays: From Ancient Creed to Technological Man , Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
• Kalfoglou, A.L., Gittelsohn, J.A., 2000, “A qualitative follow-up study of women’s experiences with oocyte donation,” Human Reproduction , 15(4): 798–805.
• Kass, L.R., 1998, “The wisdom of repugnance: why we should ban the cloning of humans,” Valparaiso University Law Rev iew 32(2): 679–705.
• Kevles, D.J., 1995, [1985], In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics and the Uses of Human Heredity , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; first edition, 1985.
• Kiessling, A.A., 2001, “In the stem-cell debate, new concepts need new words,” Nature , 413(6855): 453.
• Kitcher, P., 1997, “Whose self is it, anyway?,” Sciences (New York) , 37(5): 58–62.
• Langlois, A., 2017. “The global governance of human cloning: the case of UNESCO,” Palgrave Communications , 3: 17019. doi:10.1057/palcomms.2017.19
• Levick, S.E., 2004, Clone Being: Exploring the Psychological and Social Dimensions , Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
• Levy, N. and Lotz, M., 2005, “Reproductive cloning and a (kind of) genetic fallacy,” Bioethics , 19: 232–250.
• Lipschutz, J.H., 1999, “To clone or not to clone–a Jewish perspective,” Journal of Medical Ethics , 25(2): 105–7.
• Ma, H., O’Neil, R.C., Gutierrez, N.M., Hariharan, M., Zhang, Z.Z., He, Y., Cinnioglu, C., Kayali, R., Kang, E., Lee, Y., et al., 2017, “Functional Human Oocytes Generated by Transfer of Polar Body Genomes,” Cell Stem Cell , 20: 112–119.
• Macintosh, K.L., 2005, Illegal Beings. Human Clones and the Law , New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Magnus, D. and Cho, M.K., 2005, “Issues in oocyte donation for stem cell research,” Science , 308: 1747–8.
• McDougall, R., 2008, “A resource-based version of the argument that cloning is an affront to human dignity,” Journal of Medical Ethics , 34(4): 259–261.
• McHugh, P.R., 2004, “Zygote and ’clonote‘ – the ethical use of embryonic stem cells,” New England Journal of Medicine , 351(3): 209–11.
• McGee G. (ed.), 2000, The Human Cloning Debate , 2nd edition, Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Hills Books.
• Mertes, H. and Pennings, G., 2007, “Oocyte donation in stem cell research,” Human Reproduction , 22(3): 629–634.
• National Bioethics Advisory Commission, NBAC, (1999), Ethical Issues in Human Stem Cell Research , Rockville, MD: NBAC.
• Noggle, S., Fung, H.L., Gore, A., Martinez, H., Satriani, K.C., et al., 2011, “Human oocytes reprogram somatic cells to a pluripotent state,” Nature , 478(7367): 70–5.
• O’Neil, O., 2002, Autonomy and Trust in Bioethics (Gifford Lectures 2001) , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Paul, D., 1995, Controlling Human Heredity: 1865 to Present , Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.
• Pence, G., 1998, Who’s Afraid of Human Cloning? , Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
• Pera, M. and Trounson, A., 2013, “Cloning debate: Stem-cell researchers must stay engaged,” Nature , 498: 159–161.
• President’s Council on Bioethics [PCBE], 2002, Human Cloning and Human Dignity: An Ethical Inquiry , Washington D.C.: PCBE.
• Putnam, H., 1997, “Cloning people,” in The Genetic Revolution and Human Rights , J. Burley (ed.), Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press: 1–13.
• Ramsey, P., 1966, “Moral and religious implications of genetic control,” in Genetics and the Future Man , J.D. Roslansky (ed.), New York: Appleton-Century Crofts, 107–69.
• Rao, M. and Condic M.L., 2008, “Alternative sources of pluripotent stem cells: scientific solutions to an ethical dilemma,” Stem Cells and Development , 17(1): 1–10.
• Resnik, D.B., 2001, “Regulating the market for human eggs,” Bioethics , 15(1): 1–25.
• Roberts, C., Throsby, K., 2008, “Paid to share: IVF patients, eggs and stem cell research,” Social Science & Medicine , 66(1): 159–169.
• Robertson, J.A, 1995, “Symbolic issues in embryo research,” Hastings Center Report , 25(1): 37–38.
• Rulli, T., 2016, “Preferring a Genetically-Related Child,” Journal of Moral Philosophy , 13: 669–698.
• Sadeghi, M., 2007, “Islamic perspectives on human cloning,” Human Reproduction and Genetic Ethics , 13(2): 32–40.
• Saitou, M. and Miyauchi, H., 2016, “Gametogenesis from Pluripotent Stem Cells,” Cell Stem Cell , 18: 721–735.
• Sandel, M.J., 2007, The Case Against Perfection. Ethics in the Age of Genetic Engineering , Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
• Saunders, R. and Savulescu, J., 2008, “Research ethics and lessons from Hwanggate: what can we learn from the Korean cloning fraud?,” Journal of Medical Ethics , 34(3): 214–221.
• Savulescu, J., 1999, “Should we clone human beings? Cloning as a source of tissue transplantation,” Journal of Medical Ethics , 25: 87–95.
• Segal, N.L., 2000, Entwined Lives: Twins and What They Tell Us About Human Behavior , New York: Plume.
• Sparrow, R. 2006. “Cloning, Parenthood, and Genetic Relatedness,” Bioethics , 20(6): 308–318.
• Steinbock, B., 2001, “Respect for human embryos,” in Cloning and the Future of Human Embryo Research , P. Lauritzen (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press: 21–33.
• –––, 2004, “Payment for egg donation and surrogacy,” Mount Sinai Journal of Medicine , 71(4): 255–265.
• Strong, C., 2005, “Harming by conceiving: a review of misconceptions and a new analysis,” The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy , 30: 491–516.
• –––, 2008, “Cloning and adoption: a reply to Levy and Lotz,” Bioethics , 22(2): 130–136.
• Tachibana, M., Amato, P., Sparman, M., Gutierrez, N.M., Tippner-Hedges, R., Ma, H., Kang, E., Fulati, A., Lee, H.S., Sritanaudomchai, H., et al., 2013, “Human Embryonic Stem Cells Derived by Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer,” Cell , 153: 1228–1238.
• Tooley, M., 1998, “The moral status of the cloning of humans,” in Human Cloning: Biomedical Ethical Reviews , J. Humber and R. Almeder (eds.), Totowa, NJ: Humana Press: 65–102.
• Walters, L., 2004, “Human embryonic stem cell research: an intercultural perspective,” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal , 14(1): 3–38.
• Wilmut, I., Schnieke, A.E., McWhir J., et al., 1997, “ Viable offspring derived from fetal and adult mammalian cells,” Nature , 385:810–3.
• Wilmut, I., Campbell, K.H., Tudge, C., 2001, The Second Creation: The Age of Biological Control , London: Headline Book Publishing.
• Whitworth, K.M. and Prather, R.S., 2010, “Somatic cell nuclear transfer efficiency: How can it be improved through nuclear remodeling and reprogramming?,” Molecular Reproduction and Development , 77(12): 1001–1015.

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

• Savulescu, J., 2005, “ Equality cloning and clonism, why we must clone ,” bionews.org, accessed 17 Sept 2012.
• UNESCO, “ Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights ”, adopted 11 November 1997.

donation of human organs | ethics, biomedical: stem cell research | eugenics | feminist philosophy, topics: perspectives on reproduction and the family | informed consent | moral status, grounds of | personal identity | respect

Copyright © 2021 by Katrien Devolder < katrien . devolder @ philosophy . ox . ac . uk >

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2023 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

• IELTS Scores
• Life Skills Test
• Find a Test Centre
• Find Student Housing
• General Training
• Academic Word List
• Topic Vocabulary
• Collocation
• Phrasal Verbs
• Writing eBooks
• Reading eBook
• All eBooks & Courses
• Sample Essays
• Human Cloning Essay

IELTS Human Cloning Essay

This is a model answer for a  human cloning  essay.

If you look at the task, the wording is slightly different from the common  'do you agree or disagree'  essay.

However, it is essentially asking the same thing.

As people live longer and longer, the idea of cloning human beings in order to provide spare parts is becoming a reality. The idea horrifies most people, yet it is no longer mere science fiction.

To what extent do you agree with such a procedure?

Have you any reservations?

Understanding the Question and Task

You are asked if you agree with human cloning to use their body parts (in other words, what are the benefits), and what reservations (concerns) you have (in other words, what are the disadvantages).

So the best way to answer this human cloning essay is probably to look at both sides of the issue as has been done in the model answer.

As always, you must read the question carefully to make sure you answer it fully and do not go off topic.

You are specifically being asked to discuss the issue of creating human clones to then use their body parts. If you write about other issues to do with human cloning, you may go off topic.

Model Human Cloning Essay

You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.

Write about the following topic:

Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own experience or knowledge.

Write at least 250 words.

Model Answer for Human Cloning Essay

The cloning of animals has been occurring for a number of years now, and this has now opened up the possibility of cloning humans too. Although there are clear benefits to humankind of cloning to provide spare body parts, I believe it raises a number of worrying ethical issues.

Due to breakthroughs in medical science and improved diets, people are living much longer than in the past. This, though, has brought with it problems. As people age, their organs can fail so they need replacing. If humans were cloned, their organs could then be used to replace those of sick people. It is currently the case that there are often not enough organ donors around to fulfil this need, so cloning humans would overcome the issue as there would then be a ready supply.

However, for good reasons, many people view this as a worrying development. Firstly, there are religious arguments against it. It would involve creating other human beings and then eventually killing them in order to use their organs, which it could be argued is murder. This is obviously a sin according to religious texts. Also, dilemmas would arise over what rights these people have, as surely they would be humans just like the rest of us. Furthermore, if we have the ability to clone humans, it has to be questioned where this cloning will end. Is it then acceptable for people to start cloning relatives or family members who have died?

To conclude, I do not agree with this procedure due to the ethical issues and dilemmas it would create. Cloning animals has been a positive development, but this is where it should end.

(276 words)

The essay is well-organized, with a clear introducion which introduces the topic:

• The cloning of animals has been occurring for a number of years now, and this has now opened up the possibility of cloning humans too.

And it has a thesis statement that makes it clear exactly how the human cloning essay will be structured and what the candidate's opinion is:

• Although there are clear benefits to humankind of cloning to provide spare body parts, I believe it raises a number of worrying ethical issues.

The first body paragraph discusses the advantages of cloning humans, and then the second body paragraph looks at the problems associated with this. The change of direction to look at the other side is clearly marked with a transition word ("however") and a topic sentence:

• However, for good reasons, many people view this as a worrying development.

Other transition words are used effectively to guide the reader through the ideas in the human cloning essay: Firstly,.. Also,... Furthermore,...

The candidate demonstrates that they can use a mix of complex structures. For example:

• Due to breakthroughs in medical science and improved diets, people are living much longer than in the past.
• It would involve creating another human and then eventually killing it in order to use its organs, which it could be argued is murder.
• ...if we have the ability to clone humans, it has to be questioned where this cloning will end.

<<< Back

Next >>>

More Agree / Disagree Essays:

Dying Languages Essay: Is a world with fewer languages a good thing?

Dying languages essays have appeared in IELTS on several occasions, an issue related to the spread of globalisation. Check out a sample question and model answer.

Return of Historical Objects and Artefacts Essay

This essay discusses the topic of returning historical objects and artefacts to their country of origin. It's an agree/disagree type IELTS question.

Paying Taxes Essay: Should people keep all the money they earn?

Paying Taxes Essay: Read model essays to help you improve your IELTS Writing Score for Task 2. In this essay you have to decide whether you agree or disagree with the opinion that everyone should be able to keep their money rather than paying money to the government.

IELTS Vegetarianism Essay: Should we all be vegetarian to be healthy?

Vegetarianism Essay for IELTS: In this vegetarianism essay, the candidate disagrees with the statement, and is thus arguing that everyone does not need to be a vegetarian.

Internet vs Newspaper Essay: Which will be the best source of news?

A recent topic to write about in the IELTS exam was an Internet vs Newspaper Essay. The question was: Although more and more people read news on the internet, newspapers will remain the most important source of news. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Employing Older People Essay: Is the modern workplace suitable?

Employing Older People Essay. Examine model essays for IELTS Task 2 to improve your score. This essay tackles the issue of whether it it better for employers to hire younger staff rather than those who are older.

IELTS Internet Essay: Is the internet damaging social interaction?

Internet Essay for IELTS on the topic of the Internet and social interaction. Included is a model answer. The IELTS test usually focuses on topical issues. You have to discuss if you think that the Internet is damaging social interaction.

Extinction of Animals Essay: Should we prevent this from happening?

In this extinction of animals essay for IELTS you have to decide whether you think humans should do what they can to prevent the extinction of animal species.

Role of Schools Essay: How should schools help children develop?

This role of schools essay for IELTS is an agree disagree type essay where you have to discuss how schools should help children to develop.

Truthfulness in Relationships Essay: How important is it?

This truthfulness in relationships essay for IELTS is an agree / disagree type essay. You need to decide if it's the most important factor.

Free University Education Essay: Should it be paid for or free?

Free university education Model IELTS essay. Learn how to write high-scoring IELTS essays. The issue of free university education is an essay topic that comes up in the IELTS test. This essay therefore provides you with some of the key arguments about this topic.

Technology Development Essay: Are earlier developments the best?

This technology development essay shows you a complex IELTS essay question that is easily misunderstood. There are tips on how to approach IELTS essay questions

Airline Tax Essay: Would taxing air travel reduce pollution?

Airline Tax Essay for IELTS. Practice an agree and disagree essay on the topic of taxing airlines to reduce low-cost air traffic. You are asked to decide if you agree or disagree with taxing airlines in order to reduce the problems caused.

IELTS Sample Essay: Is alternative medicine ineffective & dangerous?

IELTS sample essay about alternative and conventional medicine - this shows you how to present a well-balanced argument. When you are asked whether you agree (or disagree), you can look at both sides of the argument if you want.

Essay for IELTS: Are some advertising methods unethical?

This is an agree / disagree type question. Your options are: 1. Agree 100% 2. Disagree 100% 3. Partly agree. In the answer below, the writer agrees 100% with the opinion. There is an analysis of the answer.

Sample IELTS Writing: Is spending on the Arts a waste of money?

Sample IELTS Writing: A common topic in IELTS is whether you think it is a good idea for government money to be spent on the arts. i.e. the visual arts, literary and the performing arts, or whether it should be spent elsewhere, usually on other public services.

Ban Smoking in Public Places Essay: Should the government ban it?

Ban smoking in public places essay: The sample answer shows you how you can present the opposing argument first, that is not your opinion, and then present your opinion in the following paragraph.

Examinations Essay: Formal Examinations or Continual Assessment?

Examinations Essay: This IELTS model essay deals with the issue of whether it is better to have formal examinations to assess student’s performance or continual assessment during term time such as course work and projects.

Scientific Research Essay: Who should be responsible for its funding?

Scientific research essay model answer for Task 2 of the test. For this essay, you need to discuss whether the funding and controlling of scientific research should be the responsibility of the government or private organizations.

Multinational Organisations and Culture Essay

Multinational Organisations and Culture Essay: Improve you score for IELTS Essay writing by studying model essays. This Essay is about the extent to which working for a multinational organisation help you to understand other cultures.

Any comments or questions about this page or about IELTS? Post them here. Your email will not be published or shared.

Before you go...

Check out the ielts buddy band 7+ ebooks & courses.

Would you prefer to share this page with others by linking to it?

• Click on the HTML link code below.
• Copy and paste it, adding a note of your own, into your blog, a Web page, forums, a blog comment, your Facebook account, or anywhere that someone would find this page valuable.

Band 7+ eBooks

"I think these eBooks are FANTASTIC!!! I know that's not academic language, but it's the truth!"

Linda, from Italy, Scored Band 7.5

IELTS Modules:

Other resources:.

• All Lessons
• Band Score Calculator
• Writing Feedback
• Speaking Feedback
• Teacher Resources
• Free Downloads
• Recent Essay Exam Questions
• Books for IELTS Prep
• Student Housing
• Useful Links

Recent Articles

Common Questions about the IELTS Speaking Test

Mar 09, 24 05:28 AM

IELTS Computer Delivered Practice Tests Plus Band Score

Mar 01, 24 02:38 AM

History and Heritage Vocabulary for IELTS

Feb 29, 24 10:00 AM

Important pages

IELTS Writing IELTS Speaking IELTS Listening   IELTS Reading All Lessons Vocabulary Academic Task 1 Academic Task 2 Practice Tests

Connect with us

Copyright © 2022- IELTSbuddy All Rights Reserved

IELTS is a registered trademark of University of Cambridge, the British Council, and IDP Education Australia. This site and its owners are not affiliated, approved or endorsed by the University of Cambridge ESOL, the British Council, and IDP Education Australia.

The Ethics of Human Cloning

The American Enterprise , March 1, 1999.

Social critics James Q. Wilson and Leon Kass debate the social, psychological and ethical ramifications of human cloning. Wilson supports limited cloning to two-parent heterosexual families and believes the source of the egg should be restricted to race, ethnicity or sex, but parents should not deliberately try to create designer babies. Kass responds the requirement of a two parent family has not been realized in in-vitro fertilization regulations or even for adoption. Moreover he contends that cloning is the twin not the offspring of its source and that cloned child will more often be scrutinized in relation to the older child. A society that treats cloning as acceptable rationalizes fabrication as procreation.

In a new book from AEI Press, two prominent social critics clash over a controversial technology that is likely to be tried with humans in the near future. Following is an edited excerpt from the debate between James Q. Wilson and Leon Kass. Wilson, emeritus professor at UCLA, is chairman of the American Enterprise Institute’s Board of Academic Advisers. Kass, who holds an M.D. and a Ph.D. in biochemistry, is a Brady Fellow at AEI. The book-length exchange between these two men is available free from TAE as part of a special promotion.

JAMES Q. WILSON

“Family structure, not the method of reproduction, is what matters.”

LIKE MOST PEOPLE, I instinctively recoil from the idea of cloning human beings. But we ought to pause and identify what in the process is so distressing. My preliminary view is that the central problem is not creating an identical twin but creating it without parents. Children born of a woman–however the conception is produced–will in the great majority of cases enjoy that special irrational affection that has been vital to human upbringings for millennia. If she is married to a man and they, like the great majority of married couples, invest energy, love, and commitment in the child, the child is likely to do well.

My argument is that the structure of the family a child is born into is more important than the sexual process by which the child is produced. If Leon Kass and other opponents of cloning think that sexuality is more important than families, they should object to any form of assisted reproduction that does not involve parental coition. Many such forms now exist. Children are adopted by parents who did not give them birth. Artificial insemination produces children without sexual congress. Some forms of such insemination rely on sperm produced by a man other than the woman’s husband, while other forms involve the artificial insemination of a surrogate mother who will relinquish the baby to a married couple. By in vitro fertilization, eggs and sperm can be joined in a Petri dish and then transferred into the woman’s uterus.

I have mixed views about assisted reproduction. Some forms I endorse, others I worry about, still others I oppose. The two principles on which my views rest concern, first, the special relationship between infant and mother that is the product of childbirth, however conception was arranged, and second, the great advantage to children that comes from growing up in an intact, two-parent family.

Assisted reproduction, whether by artificial insemination or in vitro fertilization, is now relatively common. In none of those cases is the child the result of marital sex. And in some cases the child isnot genetically related to at least one parent. I am aware of no study that shows in vitro fertilization to have harmed the children’s mental or psychological status or their relationships with parents. A study in England compared children conceived by in vitro fertilization, or by artificial insemination with sperm from an unknown donor, with children who were sexually conceived and grew up in either birth oradoptive families. By every measure of parenting, the children who were the product of either an artificial fertilization or inseminationby a donor did better than children who were naturally conceived. The better parenting should not be surprising. Those parents had been struggling to have children; when a new technology made it possible, they were delighted, and that delight motivated them to be especially supportive of their offspring.

Some observers are opposed to all of these arrangements, no matterwhat their effect on children. Paul Ramsey argued in 1970 that for any third party–say, an egg or sperm donor–to be involved violates the marriage covenant. That is also the view of the Roman Catholic Church. My view is different: If the child is born of a woman who is part of a two-parent family, and both parents work hard to raise him or her properly, we poor mortals have done all that man and God might expect of us.

Matters become more complex when a surrogate mother is involved. There, a woman is inseminated by a man so that she may bear a child tobe given to another couple. That process uses a woman’s body from the start for purposes against which her own instincts, as well as our own moral judgments, rebel.

The case of Baby M in New Jersey began with a child born to Mary Beth Whitehead. She had entered into a contractual agreement with William and Elizabeth Stern to deliver the child to them. Mrs. Whitehead had become pregnant through artificial fertilization by Mr. Stern’s sperm. After the baby’s birth, Mrs. Whitehead refused to surrender it;the Sterns sued. The judge decided that the contract should be honored and the baby should go to the Sterns. On appeal, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided unanimously that the contract was invalid but gave the baby to Mr. Stern and allowed Mrs. Whitehead visiting rights.

The contract, according to the court, was void because it illegally used money to procure a child. More importantly, because no woman can truly give informed consent to relinquishing an infant she has notyet borne and seen, Mrs. Whitehead had not entered into a valid contract. At that time, and so far as I know even today, in every state but Wyoming no woman can agree to allowing her child to be adopted unless that agreement is ratified after birth.

Why, then, did the court give the child to Mr. Stern? The court did not like Mrs. Whitehead. She was poor, ill-educated, moved frequently, received public assistance, and was married to an alcohol abuser.To me, Mrs. Whitehead’s condition was largely irrelevant. The central fact was that she was the baby’s mother. The overwhelming body of biological and anthropological evidence supports the view that women become deeply attached to their children. The mother-child bond is oneof the most powerful in nature and is essential to the existence, tosay nothing of the health, of human society.

The child belonged to its mother, period. That does not mean that all forms of surrogate mothering are wrong, but it at least means that the buyer of the surrogate’s services is completely at risk. Given that risk, surrogate motherhood will never become popular, but it will occur in some cases.

I favor limiting cloning to intact, heterosexual families and placing sharp restrictions on the source of the eggs. We do not want families planning to have a movie star, basketball player, or high-energy physicist as an offspring. But I confess I am not clear as to how those limits might be drawn, and if no one can solve that puzzle, I would join Kass in banning cloning. Perhaps the best solution is a kind of screened lottery akin to what doctors performing in vitro fertilization now do with donated sperm. One can match his race or ethnicity and even select a sex, but beyond that he takes his chances.

I am persuaded that if only married couples can clone, and if we sharply limit the sources of the embryo they can implant in the woman,cloning will be quite rare. Sex is more fun than cloning, and artificial insemination and in vitro fertilization preserve the element of genetic chance that most people, I think, favor. Dr. Kass is right to stress the mystery and uncertainty of sexual union. That is why hardly any woman with a fertile husband who could obtain sperm from a donor bank will do so. Procreation is a delight.

“Cloning turns procreation into manufacture.”

WILSON BEGINS, AS I DO, with repugnance. He acknowledges his own instinctive recoil from the idea of human cloning but does not quite trust his sense of moral disquiet, and sets out to reason it away. That places the burden of proof on those who object to cloning rather than on the proponents. Worse, it requires that the reasons offered be finally acceptable to utilitarians who measure only in terms of tangible harms and benefits but who are generally blind to the deeper meanings of things.

Wilson uses the social acceptance of in vitro fertilization to rebut objections against laboratory conception of human life. But by removing human conception from the human body and by introducing new partners in reproduction (scientists and physicians), in vitro fertilization did more than supply what one or both bodies lack to produce an infant. By putting the origin of human life literally in human hands,it began a process that would lead, in practice, to the increasing technical mastery of human generation and, in thought, to the continuing erosion of respect for the mystery of sexuality and human renewal.The very existence of in vitro fertilization, notwithstanding its real benefits, becomes a justification for the next steps in turning procreation into manufacture. The arrival of cloning, far from gaining legitimacy from the precedent of in vitro fertilization, should instead awaken those who previously saw no difficulty with starting human life in Petri dishes.

Wilson does profess sympathy with those who think cloning is contrary to nature, but nature’s normative pointings have become invisibleto him. Here is probably the biggest philosophical reason for our difference.

At the center of my objection to cloning is my belief in the profundity of sex. At the center of Wilson’s is the concern that all children have parents. But the fact is we will be increasingly incapable of defending the institution of marriage and the two-parent family if we are indifferent to its natural grounding in sex. Can we ensure that all children will have two parents if we ignore the natural sexual foundations of parenthood?

Cloning is asexual reproduction. A clone is the twin rather than the offspring of its “source.” It has no parents, biologically speaking, unless its “parents” are the mother and father of the person from whom it was cloned.

Wilson is willing to define motherhood solely by the act of givingbirth. And if the clone’s birth mother is married, her husband will be, by (social) definition, its father. In that way Wilson tries to give a virtually normal biparental identity to this radically aparental child, but in doing so Wilson clings to nature and the natural facts of gestation and parturition as his anchor. For that reason he argues elsewhere for a ban on the laboratory growth of a “newborn” child from sperm to term: “Without human birth, the parents’ attitude toward the infant would be deeply compromised.”

By playing down cloning’s psychological problems of identity and individuality, Wilson is able to treat it as an innocent prospect. Butthere are unique dangers in mixing the twin relationship with the parent-child relationship. Virtually no parent is going to be able to treat a clone of himself or herself as one does a child generated by the lottery of sex. The new life will constantly be scrutinized in relation to that of the older copy. Even where undue parental expectations on the clone (say, to live the same life, only without its errors)are avoided, the child is likely to be ever a curiosity. Moreover, clones, because they are the flesh and blood (and the look-alike) of only one parent, are likely to be especially implicated in tensions between the parents. In the event of a divorce, will mommy still love the clone of daddy?

Wilson is also naive in believing that cloning can be confined to married couples seeking a remedy for childlessness. In vitro fertilization has not been so restricted; single women now regularly use artificial insemination with donor sperm. Commercial sperm banks are thriving, including those that specialize in eugenics (by providing only sperm from “geniuses”). Couples interested in cloning, especially those who have figured out the dangers of self-cloning, will certainly want to make use of “high-class” donor nuclei. Cloning provides the powerful opening salvo in the campaign to exercise control over the quality of offspring. The dangerous attitude that sees children as products for manipulation rather than gifts to be treasured will be further accelerated.

Given the fracture of the once-respected and solid bonds among sex, love, procreation, and stable marriage, and the relentless march oftechnology, it will prove impossible to preserve Wilson’s faint hopes for limiting cloning to the sphere of traditional parenthood and family life. The right to reproduce (or not) is now widely regarded as a right belonging to individuals: Who are Wilson and I to stand in the way of any unmarried woman’s desire for personal fulfillment through motherhood of a clone?

The right to reproduce is also being expanded to include a right to the type of child one wishes. Parents already exercise some choice,through genetic screening, over the quality of their children. Strange requests are already being voiced. Lobbyists for the congenitally deaf are seeking to abort non-deaf fetuses as part of their campaign to “normalize” deafness and to provide only deaf children for the deaf. Gay rights organizations urged the National Bioethics Advisory Commission to declare in favor of cloning. Some advocates even argued that, should homosexuality be shown to have a genetic basis, homosexuals would have an obligation to reproduce through cloning to preserve their kind!

Even if human cloning is rarely undertaken, a society in which it is tolerated is no longer the same society–any more than is a society that permits incest or cannibalism or slavery on even a small scale. It is a society that has forgotten how to shudder, that rationalizes away the abominable. A society that allows cloning has, whether it knows it or not, tacitly said yes to converting procreation into fabrication, and to treating our children as pure projects of our will.