The perceptions surrounding the issue of human cloning vacillate from a debatable claim put forth by a free-love cult to a statement of progress dramatized by a rogue scientist. The topic has vast potential to disrupt the ingrained values found in Western Culture. If unregulated, human cloning may upset the creation backbone of many religions, conflict with the traditional ideas of the “soul,” and possibly cause the development of a subordinate class of replica humans. Being influenced by the media, most people believe human cloning may be impossible due to the complexity of the human genome. However, the information at hand does not support this conclusion. Actually, the speed of human cloning research has been faster, and the character more feasible, than anyone has ever fathomed. Top scientists have discovered that the human genome contains a single genetic characteristic that may provide security from frequent mishaps usually attributed to animal cloning. This finding supports the claim that human cloning may potentially be more proficient and efficient than anyone has ever believed.

Dr. Keith Killian and Dr. Randy Jirtle of Duke University Medical Center, along with other distinguished scientists, have found that humans could theoretically be easier to clone than other mammals, such as sheep, cows, pigs, and mice (Killian et al, 2001, p. 1721). The underlying reason for this substantial claim is a vital detail found in the human genome. Humans possess a beneficial quality that prevents fetal overgrowth, a major obstacle encountered in past trials of cloning animals (Jirtle & Killian, 2001, p.2). This “genetic benefit” may seem insignificant since it involves only a single gene, but the researchers say that it is substantial enough to create fundamental disparities between humans and other animals in the way that they manage fetal growth and restrict cancer abnormalities (Jirtle & Killian, 2001, p.2).

The “genetic benefit” is described as follows: humans and other primates have two active copies of a gene called insulin-like growth factor II receptor [IGF2R], which codes for a protein that is essential for proper fetal growth (Jirtle & Killian, 2001, p. 2). While humans and other primates receive two functional copies of the gene (one from each parent), other mammals receive only one functional copy (from the mother), a phenomenon known as “imprinting” (Killian et al, 2001, p. 1722). Genetic “imprinting” essentially occurs when the second copy of a gene is ‘switched off’ by molecular markers (Jirtle & Killian, 2001, p. 2). Even though the actual IGF2R gene remains, its “epigenetic” (outside the gene) markings are damaged and altered to an extent that disrupts the gene’s natural function (Jirtle & Killian, 2001, p. 2). Animals with only one functional copy of IGF2R are prone to two major types of biological complications: cancer and cloning abnormalities. These cloning abnormalities include “overly large offspring, immature lung development, enlarged hearts and reduced immunity to disease” (Jirtle & Killian, 2001, p. 2). Since humans lack “imprinting” of this gene, human cloning would be protected from these various problems associated with animal cloning.

Sheep are one of the many animals that encounter cloning problems due to the “imprinting” of the IGF2R gene. Dr. Killian, the molecular evolutionist leading the study, says, “This is the first concrete genetic data showing that the cloning process could be less complicated in humans than in sheep” (Jirtle & Killian, 2001, p. 2). From previous studies, scientists have determined that the success rate for a viable sheep embryo clone is about 1 in 300. Furthermore, about half of the ‘successes’ have “large offspring syndrome,” which can kill the mother and the fetus (Jirtle & Killian, 2001, p. 2). Since humans lack the genetic “imprinting” of this certain gene, it is logical to assume that humanity may be a species for which cloning technology might be more effective.

In order to prove that humans lack “imprinting” of the IGF2R gene, the Duke scientists utilized a wide research base. Using the latest gene mapping instruments, they analyzed 75 human fetuses (40 first trimester and 35 second trimester) and 12 term placentas (Killian et al, 2001, p. 1724). By examining the embryonic tissue of the brain, heart, kidney, liver, and lung, they concluded that there was no evidence of the skewed gene expression that one would expect from “imprinting” of the IGF2R gene (Killian et al, 2001, p. 1725). The scientists genetically tested for “imprinting” by using six different single nucleotide polymorphisms, genetic markers known by the scientific community as SNPs (Killian et al, 2001, p. 3). These SNPs are essentially from the same family of biomolecules that are now being utilized for mapping the entire human genome (Jirtle & Killian, 2001, p. 4). Their research also concluded that the gene is not universally imprinted in primates and other close non-primate relatives, including shrews and lemurs (Jirtle & Killian, 2001, p. 4). Evolutionary research predicts that these mammals lost genetic “imprinting” about 70 million years ago (Jirtle & Killian, 2001, p. 4). It seems highly maladaptive for a species to be prohibited by “imprinting” of this specific gene, which likely explains the evolutionary path that humans and other primates have taken over time.

The scientists that conducted this study have found that contrary to widespread belief, the potential cloning of humans may be easier than those already completed with other mammals. These researchers have found that the lack of “imprinting” on the IGF2R gene would lead to fewer complications in the cloning process for humans. Even though several bioethical restraints on human cloning exist (which stem from the unique historical situation of humanity and its awesome newfound power), there is still a real possibility that some scientists may actually perform the procedure in nations that lack cloning laws, since human cloning appears biologically sound. A future with human cloning may indeed be inevitable.