Index Various values ​​that have been implemented in the disputed human cloning What are the social values ​​regarding human cloning? How much would it cost and when will it be accessible to ordinary people? What work Has it been done so far and what is the success rate? Some safety concerns? Conclusions References The concept or definition of cloning is to asexually produce an exact copy of an organism simply by using its genetic information. Therefore, when we talk about human cloning, we mean the act of artificially producing a genetically identical copy of a human being. Cloning happens naturally. An example of this event is the formation of identical twins in the womb. The controversy over human cloning largely concerns a procedure that scientists use in the laboratory, known as “somatic cell nuclear transfer.” The current Health and Science Journal discusses the pros and cons of human cloning. According to the essay, the possibility of cloning technologies allows the medical field to renew damaged tissue and grow a new cell to replace the damaged tissue. This approach could open up new possibilities for growing genetically identical organs such as kidneys, hearts or bone marrow for patients awaiting transplants. This can bring enormous benefits to the biomedical field. The cloning process can also help infertile couples have a child who shares the same genetic information. Although the process of human cloning has advantages, there is also an equally disadvantageous factor. According to the Health Science Journal, cloning creates identical genes, which prevents genetic diversity. Genetic diversity is what helps an organism adapt to its environment and thrive as a species. One of Charles Darwin's theories of natural selection concerns the ability of an organism to adapt to an environment in order to survive. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay This literature analyzes the pros and cons of human cloning to examine whether it is ethical to pursue human cloning by answering the following questions: What are some policies/laws, religious and educational values ​​that have been implemented to challenge human cloning? What are the social values ​​regarding human cloning? When will it be more accessible to ordinary people? Are there policies that ban human cloning if it is only beneficial to the rich? What kind of work has been done so far and what is the success rate? What are some of the security concerns? Understanding the ethical issues related to the pursuit of human cloning from social, economic, and political perspectives will shed light on how leaders in the scientific, political, and religious communities can begin to address and resolve this complex problem. Various values ​​that have been implemented in the human cloning dispute According to the journal “Balancing morality and economy: The Case of State Human Cloning,” by Bonnie Stabile, laws against human cloning are more likely in states that are against abortion, which do not aspire to support biotechnological and scientific advances and are more likely to be politically conservative. In contrast, states that are more likely to pursue human cloning are politically liberal and have greater aspirations to support biotechnology and scientific advances. These states also tend to be less influenced by religious beliefs. Therefore, they also tend to be more permissive about abortion. The cloning controversy has been recentlybrought to the public's attention. Therefore, policies and laws are currently being formulated both in states and internationally. In the United States, according to cloning laws and public policy, on July 31, 2001, the House of Representatives passed a bill called “The Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2001”. This bill, however, was not supported by the Senate. Likewise, on February 27, 2003, the House of Representatives passed a bill almost identical to the 2001 bill, called “The Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2003.” This was also not supported by the Senate. The federal government has yet to pass policies regulating human cloning; Therefore, several states have taken the issue into their own hands and have passed their own laws and regulations regarding human cloning. Reviewing the policies and regulations of the International Organization, the United Nations, in March 2005, approved a non-binding global ban on all human cloning, according to BBC news. The United States and various Catholic countries voted for it, while the United Kingdom voted against the policy. The American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (APPLOG) is also against the concept of pursuing human cloning. This has drawn attention to the fact that some businessmen may be thinking of exchanging human life for charitable purposes. An interesting question is raised regarding the status of the cloned human within society. In the United States, the House of Representatives issued a ruling that human cloning is illegal; but the Senate has yet to rule on the matter. According to the Current Health Science Journal, in December 2006, Australia banned human cloning research. The Roman Catholic Church under Pope Benedict XVI has condemned the practice of cloning, saying it represents “a grave attack on human dignity and equity between people.” Jess Rainbow explained that cloning ideology in the strictest sense is the act of “playing God.” Similarly, in Saudi Arabia, the pursuit of human cloning was banned on June 28, 1997, claiming that it is a sinful act. Michael J. Sandles, maintaining the traditional values ​​of humanity, asks an intriguing question to his readers; Is pursuing human cloning unethical since only the rich can benefit from it? Or it's because it's dehumanizing. Sandles presents the following as a central argument in favor of the immorality of genetic engineering: "The fundamental question is not how to ensure equal access, but whether we should aspire to it in the first place." According to the Journal, “Balancing Morality and Economy: The Case for State Human Cloning,” about a third of states with cloning laws, universities were in favor of supporting cloning research. In the states of California, New Jersey and Permissive cloning laws were passed in Connecticut. In the United States, universities that were not involved in the political process did not support or have any input into this issue the social values ​​regarding human cloning? Opponents of human cloning firmly believe in preserving and protecting the social values ​​of a traditional family. Some of the opponents, such as doctor Leon Kass, argue that bringing life into a laboratory takes away the beauty of the “natural and necessary umbilical bond between a mother and a child.” According to Kass, creating children in a laboratory is unnatural and morally and fundamentally wrong. Similarly, a political scientist, James Q. Wilson, agrees with Kass about preserving a familytraditional; But he also wants to limit cloning to heterosexual couples only. Baroness Mary Warnock, architect of Britain's fertility law, supports this technological advance. She believes that the protection of the “traditional family” ideology is limiting the homosexual community from having its own ideal “traditional family”. Warnock argues: "While most people consider homosexuals having children 'unnatural,' this alone however cannot constitute a moral imperative to prohibit it." Similarly, the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority (HFEA) has been supporting and assisting reproductive agencies in Great Britain since 2002. The other social concern associated with human cloning is its effect on individuality and freedom . As human beings, everyone has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The report published by the Presidential Council on Bioethics highlights that human cloning can cause serious problems of identity and individuality. This means using a baby to provide organs and tissue, as the chances of rejection will be very small. This would deprive the cloned child of the values ​​that a human being possesses. Simply, the cloned child would serve to satisfy someone else's needs. Genetically modified baby or not, this is something the bioethics committee does not support. How much would it cost and when will it be accessible to ordinary people? According to Jenny Bradford, in the research article "Human Cloning", cost is a major limiting factor in pursuing human cloning. For example, the cost of in vitro fertilization (used by infertile couples to have children who share their DNA) is estimated to be at least $50,000. There is hope that in a few years the price will drop to $20,000-$30,000 USD. This is still a large expense that most ordinary people cannot afford. This is only the concern of people with fertility problems. Time magazine reported that in 2001, donated organs, such as kidneys, bone marrow, liver etc…, can range up to $200,000-$2 million per organ. Caplan, a researcher and scientist, once said: “The question will be whether we can afford cloned cells or only the rich will get them. There is no reason to think that the healthcare system will work any differently when it comes to cloning…. I am very worried that this will become an advantage that only the rich will enjoy.” Therefore, this type of advancement in medicine and technology will not be beneficial to the majority of the US population. Are there policies that prohibit research into human cloning if it only benefits the rich? Vivek Wadhwa of MIT's technology magazine wrote: "Laws and ethics cannot keep pace with technology." As a society, there are laws that must be followed, a code of ethics that must be respected. But in the world of technology there are no such things. It is always growing exponentially to regulate any ethics or law. On the other hand, there are also individuals who are against such ideas. For example, in Michael J. Sandles's argumentative article, “The Case Against Perfection: What's Wrong with Designer Children, Bionic Athlete and Genetic Engineering,” he argues that the continuation of human cloning research would mean that, as a society, everyone is recognize or accept the idea that he is rich is more deserving than poor. This would lead to a much greater division in class stratification between rich and poor. Additionally, Sandles asked his readers to consider a future in which the less fortunate are denied the benefits of this advancement in the biomedical and technological fields. Highlights that inequality in equal access to this technologyand medical progress constitutes a serious ethical consideration. While both cases speak to the importance of class consideration, a final decision has not yet been made. What work has been done so far and what is the success rate? However, cloning has been a major controversial topic for In the past two decades, the history of cloning spans more than 100 years. The very first demonstration of artificial embryo twinning occurred in 1885. Examining the history of cloning, a study conducted by the Department of Genetics at the University of Utah, this experiment was conducted by Hans Adolf Edward Dreisch. He demonstrated that by simply shaking two cellular sea urchin embryos, it was possible to separate the cells. Once the cells were successfully separated, each cell grew into a separate sea urchin. Fast forward to 1952, the first truly successful nuclear transfer. This experiment was conducted by Robert Briggs and Thomas King on a frog. Briggs and King transferred the nucleus of a tadpole into the eggs of a frog without a nucleus. The resulting cell developed into the tadpole. This experiment was not as successful because the donor nuclei were much more advanced. The few surviving tadpoles became abnormal. Then, in 1975, J. Derek Bromhall conducted an experiment on a rabbit; becoming the first mammal for nuclear transfer. Bromhall considered this experiment a success due to the advanced embryos that developed after a couple of days. He never continued the experiment to find out whether the embryos developed into healthy adult cells. Shortly after just two decades, in 1996, Dolly, the first mammal, was created. Dolly was a sheep created by Ian Wilmut and Keith Campbell using the Somatic Nuclear Transfer technique. According to the University of Utah's Department of Genetics, out of 277 attempts, only one produced an embryo that was carried to term in a surrogate mother. After Wilmut and Campbell's experiment, cloning has become a controversial topic in the world. Only a few years later, in the years 1998-1999, other mammals were created, such as cows, mice and goats. All mammals that have reached the embryonic stage have progressed from fetal cells to advanced ones. In 2013, Shoukhart Mitalipov and several other colleagues took a step forward by creating human embryonic stem cells via somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). The result was a child suffering from a rare genetic disease. Even though the schuss rate in human cloning is very low, it is still too much to say that it cannot be done. According to the Department of Genetics at the University of Utah, the success rate in human cloning will be promising in the next 10 to 15 years. Some of the security concerns? During thesis review, “Balancing Morality and Economy: The Case of Human Cloning,” by Bonnie Stabile, reports that human reproductive cloning fails. A 2002 National Academies of Science report says it will most likely fail and that the procedure is also dangerous for egg donors, surrogate mothers and cloned children. The cloning process is widely used on animals; and there is currently no statistical data to ensure the safety and efficiency of human cloning. According to the journal Current Health Science, only about 3 percent of the cloned mouse population makes it to birth. Reproductive cloning poses a high risk to women's health. According to the Science Journal, retrieving a large quantity of eggs would most likely result in a high hormone dosage. Only this can use an invisible compilation from time to time. These women would then be subjected to asurgery to extract eggs. This will also expose women to face more dangerous complications. Even if these women will be informed of the risk they face, who is to say that it is ethical to put these women at risk, all in the name of science. Studies conducted by Cohen in 2002 showed that cloned female mice's lifespan was shorter. He also observed that the immune system of the cloned mammals was very weak. Mammals were more prone to chronic disease and more likely to be obese. For example, Dolly, the cloned sheep, suffered from severe arthritis and obesity. Other researchers, like Rudolf Jaenish, who is doing a thesis at MIT, argue that, in most cases, cloned animals are defective. Therefore, when focusing on the pursuit of human cloning, safety is one of the major ethical issues that have yet to be resolved. As for the question, “Is it ethical to pursue human cloning?”, there have yet to be a set of policies and regulations in place in the United States and internationally. This article examines the ethical issues surrounding the pursuit of human cloning from social, economic, political, religious, and educational perspectives. The opinions of researchers, scientists, politicians and religious leaders on the pros and cons of this ethical issue were examined. Supporters of human cloning are intrigued by this scientific and technological progress. They think this will be a revolutionary and great benefit to the human population. An advocate like Warnock (an architect of the UK's fertility law) believes it can help infertile couples be able to have a child who shares their DNA information. The Current Health Journal also discussed how human cloning could be beneficial in the medical field. Cloning technologies can help replace damaged tissue or donated organs. Opponents, however, believe that this practice is harmful to society. They believe that pursuing human cloning would create class division, problems with individuality and identity. Furthermore, they also believe it has safety issues. In 2001, Time magazine reported that cloned donated organs were estimated to cost between $200,000 and $2 million. This kind of expense is not what ordinary people can afford. This is only beneficial to the wealthy population. Michael J. Sandle, an opponent of this practice, argues that allowing this practice will lead to a great divide in class stratification between rich and poor. There is also the concern about safety. Cohen, in 2002, conducted studies on cloned mammals. He observed that the immune system of cloned mammals was much weaker. Cloned mammals appear more prone to chronic diseases. For example, Dolly, the cloned sheep, suffered from obesity and arthritis. Similarly, Rudolf Jaenish argues that cloning will result in defective animals. However, since the issue has only recently been brought to the public's attention, it may take some time before any regulations or laws are permanently established. Furthermore, not to mention, this scientific advancement is believed to have barely scratched the surface of its true potential. The recent breakthrough occurred in 2013, by Shoukhart Mitalipov and many other colleagues. While their breakthrough wasn't entirely successful, it opened the door for many more researchers and scientists to expand their research. It is also estimated that more research will be carried out in the next 10-15 years that will shed more light on the success rate of human cloning. This is in the hope that in the next 10-15 years there will be no policies or regulations that, 23(1), 3-10.