Imagine, for a moment, that you and your friends are huddled around your dining room table. Supper has run its course, and everyone now eagerly awaits the sparkling conversation that is sure to ensue. Your group begins its’ conversation talking about the little things. Small talk and chit-chat dominate the first phases of the discourse, but you and your friends quickly move on to more important issues. Before long, someone has mentioned the word “cloning.” Such a word offers the perfect platform from which to recite one’s knowledge of current issues. Upon hearing a mention of this word, another asks, “Who’s is in favor of it, and who’s opposed to it?” “Which aspects of cloning are you in favor of or against?” Before you know it, the delightful conversation has evolved into a heated, unproductive debate. Neither side seems to make an appropriate claim, and the argument appears to have reached a stalemate. Don’t worry! You and your friends are not alone in your confusion about the subject.

Quarrels such as these are often simply the result of conflicting definitions of important terms and concepts. Cloning has been the topic of many heated political arguments for the past several years. Thankfully, though, one of the most popular misunderstandings was recently cleared up in a study by James A. Thompson which was published in Science magazine in 1998. Thompson’s study makes a clear distinction between therapeutic and reproductive cloning.

Reproductive cloning can be defined as any attempt to clone or reproduce a living being in its’ entirety. For many years it was thought to be the only type of cloning, and it was thought that cloning could serve no other purpose than the aforementioned use.

(Thompson, 1998) Thompson, though, was able to isolate and clone only a few individual cells for the purposes of research. He thus gave birth to therapeutic cloning, or the cloning of a small number of cells which, if need be, can be used to replace sick or dying cells in a being that is already alive! Therapeutic cloning, if allowed to be properly researched, could prove to be enormously beneficial to the scientific and medical world. For example, many diseases, such as Parkinson’s and some forms of Diabetes, result from the death of just a few cells in the body. If those cells were allowed to be replaced by healthy cloned cells, the patients could be virtually cured of such sicknesses!

However, despite the clear distinction between the two types of cloning, which was made so evident by Thompson, and despite the obvious benefits that cloning could provide, many federal politicians stand opposed to cloning altogether (Check, 2002). In fact, the country is as divided about the issue of cloning as it could possibly be. Much of the division is the result of the federal governments unwillingness to move forward in the decision making process. As a result, many state governments may decide to pass cloning laws of their own. If such were to happen, there would exist “a patchwork of rules across the United States with ‘therapeutic’ cloning permitted in the more liberal coastal states, but banned in the conservative heartland” (Check, 2002).

Many factors contribute to the disbelief of the existence of two types of cloning. The most significant, though, is this inability of politicians to agree on a common definition of the term. They cannot concur on the intents of the two procedures. Many politicians, for example, argue that therapeutic cloning, regardless of its’ benefits, still involves the “reproduction” of bodily cells. Thus, they find no distinction between the therapeutic and reproductive cloning.

On the other hand, some politicians, who are opposed to cloning in its’ entirety, make their strongest arguments when talking about the morals and ethics behind the procedure. Those who see no distinction between the two types argue that cloning, whether it be for therapeutic or reproductive purposes, is “morally problematic” (Check, 2002). There is no evidence to support their claim, nor is there any evidence to attack it because morals are simply matters of opinion. Many politicians, though, base their campaigns on moral judgment, and as long as they hold office there will continue to be disagreements surrounding the issue.

As a result of these misunderstandings, the country remains torn. Misconceptions such as these could be devastating to the future of our scientific community. If therapeutic cloning is not allowed to be conducted we may never find cures for such diseases as Parkinson’s or Diabetes. In conclusion, it is important to realize that factual support is not always enough to convince a society of your point of view. The misunderstandings surrounding the issue of cloning are not due to factual mix-ups, but rather to differences in opinion. Despite Thompson’s best efforts to make a distinction between therapeutic and reproductive cloning, many remain ill-informed about the topic. As a result, many individuals, politicians in particular, fail to realize that the two procedures are indeed separate.

References

Thompson, J. (1998, November 6). Embryonic Stem Cell Lines Derived from Human
Blastocysts [Electronic version]. Science, 282, 1145-1147.

Check, E. (2002) Panel’s Conflicting Views Cloud Legal Future of Human Cloning [Electronic version]. Nature, 415, 351-352.