Technology is slowly beginning to dominate the world as we knowit. We have computers. We have cell phones. We have TV. All of whichare very valuable to us, whether they be for utility orentertainment.
Welove our quick microwave meals and our electronic planners.
It is a cut-and-dry relationship. Our gadgets make our busy livesa little easier, and we love them for it. There are no ethical ormoral questions surrounding this part of our daily lives. No, thesequestions are saved for a new technology, one that can actually altera person’s life or create one.
I’m talking about cloning. For those of you who don’t fullyunderstand what this is, let me give you a brief introduction.According to Bruce Robinson, author of “Human Cloning: EthicalAspect,” cloning is “the production of one or more individual plantsor animals that are genetically identical to another plant oranimal.”
In other words, it is creating an exact duplicate or twin ofsomething.
The use of this technology draws a very fine line between what isand is not ethical.
Somepraise it and hope to see it prosper for medical reasons. Others areappalled at the thought of playing God. Where do you draw the line?
After reading of the medical benefits — possible cures for AIDS,the study of genetic defects or the growing of organs in an animalfor transplants — it’s hard to deny the benefits of cloning. Whowouldn’t want the option of having a new heart grown for a sick lovedone if they couldn’t find a match for a transplant?
The numerous medical benefits are undeniable, but as Ian Wilmutstates in his article “Cloning For Medicine,” “creating animals withgenetic defects raises challenging ethical questions.”
Who are we to play God? And what if this technology got out of thehands of medical experts and into the minds of the wrong people?
It’s hard, even for me, to argue this. I know when faced with thedeath of a loved one I would, more than likely, want technologyavailable to help them live. But one has to step back, assess theentire situation, and face the fact that cloning can not ethicallyexist.
We live on an Earth that is altered by natural occurrences. Wecannot step in with this technology and change its course. We have torealize that animals and people are born the way that they are for areason, just as animals and people die for a reason. Call it naturalselection if you will. If we allow species to return — the “JurassicPark” syndrome — or people to extend their lives for more thannature has meant, we will be furthering the demise of our planet.
Unfortunately, people have to suffer from AIDS and cancer. Peoplein my own family, people I was very close to, have suffered fromcancer. So I speak from experience when saying there comes a timewhen you have to let them go. They were no longer meant to be here.
I haven’t even begun to touch on how wrong it is to bring life toa creature to simply leave it locked in a cage for curiousobservation — to kill it for its organs when we are through with it.Animals are living creatures, just as we are, and it is wrong toassume this righteous position over them as if they have no feelingof their own — as if they are not being tortured by being forced tolive in a cage.
This is what a group of paleontologists hope to do by cloning aWoolly Mammoth that they found in Siberia According to Robinson, theywant to take DNA from a mammoth they dug up and either insert it intoan elephant’s cell, creating a mammoth hybrid, or insert the sperm ofthe mammoth into an empty ovum.
As much as I would want to see one of the creatures, I can’tjustify cloning for curiosity sake. Yes, they want to study itsbehaviors and use it as a scientific link, but what is to come of theelephant, an already endangered species? Do they let it live out therest of its miserable life under observation or do they simply killit? Neither option seems appealing — both are immoral.
And let’s not abandon the notion of picking and choosing ourchildren, or the creation of a superrace of people. Besides the factthat it’s wrong to pick the traits you want your child to have, ifthis technology were to ever get into the wrong hands, it could bedetrimental to society. Imagine if Hitler had access to somethinglike this.
The list goes on from here. There are problems with the cloningprocess itself, such as with Dolly, a 6-year-old ewe that was cloned.Technically, the DNA used to clone Dolly was the age of the ewe, sowhen the animal was born, it was born as a 6-year-old. Now we’re notonly messing with science, we’re messing with the mental stability ofa living creature.
So, take a second or two from your busy lives and really look intothis. Is playing God something you are willing to let ride on yourshoulders? Think about the consequences and repercussions that thismight have on all of us.
I know I have, and as enchanting as cloning may be, I can’t, andwon’t, support it.
–Jackie Fleishon is an English junior. Send e-mail to daletter2000@hotmail.com.
–This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of TheDaily Aztec.
