|
Save up to 50% if you register now! |
| |
| |
| Moopuna: Home - About Moopuna - Search - Help | Login - Register Now |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|
Term Papers Categories Acceptance EssaysAlcohol & Drugs American History Anatomy & Physiology Animal Science Anthropology Architecture Arts Astronomy Aviation Biographies Biology Book Reports Business Chemistry Computers & Internet Creative Writing Current Events Economics Education Engineering English Environmental Issues Ethics European History Film & Cinema Foreign Languages Geography Government Health & Beauty Health Care History Human Sexuality Legal Issues Marketing Mathematics Medicine Movies Music Mythology Philosophy Physics Poetry Political Issues Political Science Psychology Religion Science Shakespeare Social Issues Sociology Speech & Communications Sports & Games Supernatural Issues Technology Theater World History Zoology | |
|
|
Human Cloning Isnt As Scary As It Sounds
The recent news of the successful cloning of an adult sheep— in which the sheep's DNA was inserted into an unfertilized sheep egg to produce a lamb with identical DNA—has generated an outpouring of ethical concerns. These concerns are not about Dolly, the now famous sheep, nor even about the considerable impact cloning may have on the animal breeding industry, but rather about the possibility of cloning humans. For the most part, however, the ethical concerns being raised are exaggerated and misplaced, because they are based on erroneous views about what genes are and what they can do. The danger, therefore, lies not in the power of the technology, but in the misunderstanding of its significance. Producing a clone of a human being would not amount to creating a "carbon copy"— an automaton of the sort familiar from science fiction. It would be more like producing a delayed identical twin. And just as identical twins are two separate people—biologically, psychologically, morally and legally, though not genetically—so a clone is a separate person from his or her non-contemporaneous twin. To think otherwise is to embrace a belief in genetic determinism—the view that genes determine everything about us, and that environmental factors or the random events in human development are utterly insignificant. The overwhelming consensus among geneticists is that genetic determinism is false. As geneticists have come to understand the ways in which genes operate, they have also become aware of the myriad ways in which the environment affects their "expression." The genetic contribution to the simplest physical traits, such as height and hair color, is significantly mediated by environmental factors. And the genetic contribution to the traits we value most deeply, from intelligence to compassion, is conceded by even the most enthusiastic genetic researchers to be limited and indirect. Indeed, we need only a... Please login to view comments from other users.
If you are having problems registering, please don't hesitate to contact us. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
| Home | Register | Search | Help | Contact | Retrieve Password | Cancel Subscription | Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Back to Top |
|
|
|
| © Copyright 1999-2007 Moopuna.com. All Rights Reserved. |