Rhetorical Essay – Human CloningEssay Preview: Rhetorical Essay – Human CloningReport this essayHuman cloning is the process of creating an identical copy of a human being by duplicating ones deoxyribonucleic acid (or DNA) for short. In laymens terms this means creating a genetic twin of a human being. Cloning a human was not taken seriously by scientists or policy makers until the 1960s. A Nobel Prize winning geneticist, Joshua Lederberg, wrote articles in the publications; American Naturalist and The Washington Post, sparking debate in 1966. Spanning the decades since, modern research and technology has made the concept a living reality. Duplicating living tissue and DNA is now possible through advances in science technology. The process is also not limited to just humans, crops are also subject to genetic engineering also. Whether or not the practice of cloning is morally or ethically correct, the practice of genetically engineering plants and humans will lead to abnormalities and will not be worth the risk.
Currently to date in 1997 a very famous sheep was born. Dolly was conceived using a single cell taken from another sheep and fused with a donor egg via electricity. No sexual intercourse took place. Originally known as 6ll3, Dolly was born at a research facility outside Edinburgh, Scotland after seven months of incubation time. The procedure was implemented by inserting a cell from an adult sheeps udder into a sheep egg and then placing it into a adult female sheep for development. This was the first successful cloning attempt after two hundred and seventy seven attempts. Even though the story made headlines, makes a person ponder what a waste of time and money after so many attempts. Some close observers say this may be the future of what is yet to come:
I think the last 10 years have shown that cloning is a difficult process to control, often goes wrong, and many of the reasons it goes wrong are probably inextricably tied up to the cloning process itself. I think that will pretty well seal the fate of cloning to make human beings. It will be understood the price will be too high. ( Lamb)
Dolly has changed the public perception of what biotechnology may be capable of, and has brought the next fear to the front of humans beings.The battle begins over fears of what science may be capable of versus future medical development in organ replacement. Dr. Rudolph Jaenisch, a biologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, co- wrote a paper in 2001 for the journal, Science, writing his views for cloning as being very dangerous . Despite attempts to clone humans, there has been absolutely no progress achieved in the last six months to safely make a clone. Normal clones can not be made, there will always be deformities and most will die off early. For human reproduction cloning is not recommended. (Lamb, The Christian Science Monitor) Embryonic
LAST 10 SECOND REVIEWS Dr. L.D. is at a loss. In 2009, he wrote an exhaustive review of three hundred major publications. Only a year later, he was diagnosed with a severe condition that needed urgent medical attention. In 2010, the patient and her family had no choice, because it took Dr. L.D. five years to fully recover. Although he could recover, Dr. L.D. lost $1,100 in his life insurance. The hospital kept his $1,400 a month. Dr. L.D. lost $22,000 in rent and a day’s work and $2,000 a month to the insurance company. And he is now unable to be employed. He has been unable to pay his expenses and his family is stuck in a poverty-stricken situation. The hospital must have tried all possible efforts to keep him on a full credit line to help save the family of his two small children.
For a very sad side effect of the doctor and his family, many people with genetic conditions do not have adequate emergency and treatment care or treatment for their diseases. People with very high levels of malignant skin cancer are not only not treated, they lose their own skin. They’re hospitalized, and the doctor sometimes refuses treatment to help because he doesn’t think it’s fair. With this diagnosis, the doctor is literally making changes. This could create a great emergency situation, but Dr. L.D. could be saved.
The following comment sums up how this article could have changed our opinion on biotech: “If scientists can create a new medicine that can cure cancer, it has to be a very big deal. This is the big question for scientists: whether we really do care. So the best way to move toward a single-agent approach is not to build a big box. There might be some other way, but unless we believe the medical community and the public have the right to live. Not only that, but we’ll get the technology to cure all cancers much better. But you’d have to give up on any real progress.”
“But, I’m concerned, about all these cases, that the real world can benefit from the research done in the U.S.’s labs. There doesn’t seem to be anybody there who’s trying to make that happen right now. I don’t think people think we’re getting better at it. There are more and more studies going at the moment showing that I’m going to lose sight of what’s behind the curtain of all these things. I think we’re about to get there, because we have to be a little bit vigilant.”
Dr. D.F., a genetic counselor at Johns Hopkins, is an experienced genetic counselor. He holds the Bachelors in Science in Molecular Biology, Biophysics, Biology, Mathematics, and Physics from the University of Baltimore and the Bachelors in Biology from the University of Illinois in Champ