I. Introduction.
I have chosen this problem because I am extremely interested in biology,ecology and the history of mankind. The problem of genetic modification andcloning is very important at the present time. The theme of genetically modified food is actual as every year it takesthe greater place in our diet. Many scientists declare danger of the use ofgenetically modified food stuffs to health. They warn that consumption ofsimilar products is capable to lead to unpredictable consequences, includingmutations. One of big problems of a condition in that area is that geneticengineering is being moved by extreme commercial interests. Thebiotechnological companies aspire to patent and deduce on the market all new productsand new genetically modified organisms (plants and animals), not caring aboutwhat collateral consequences genetic changes can have.
To please commercial interests of some hugecompanies any precaution is rejected: in fact being guided by only scientificapproach, it would be necessary to test some generations of plants to beconvinced of their safety. It has not been made in a case with modified plants asprocess of testing can borrow millennia. In my work I will try to describe the positive and negative features ofgenetic engineering, having resulted possible reasons and examples. In fact nowthere is a set of disputes and discussions so even the urgency of this theme isproved by a simple example — quantity of existing films and serials about thisproblem.
Genetically modified products can be toxic and dangerous for people. In1989 the modification of L-Tryptophan, the food additive, caused death of 37Americans and made invalids 5000 persons because of causing sufferings andpotentially fatal illness of blood. Only after that event the product has beenwithdrawn from the use. According to special explorations, genetically modifiedL-Tryptophan was equivalent to previous substances which were made with thehelp of bacteria of natural type. However it did not correspond to these preparations on parameters ofsafety. If other tests had been carried out, for example, the test for assimilationby animals and people, the fact that this product was not safe would have becomeobvious. But such tests had not been carried out.
People have different points of view about whether the geneticmodification of food is a good thing – in fact it is quite a controversialtopic. Those involved in the biotechnology business insist it is safe and thatgenetic modification can increase yields, reduce waste and improve the flavourand keeping qualities of products. For example, soft fruits can be made firmerto prevent spoilage during transportation. People in favour of geneticmodification also say that better use can be made of agricultural land as cropscan potentially be modified to grow in hostile conditions, such as those of adrought; this will help in feeding the world. The later is a vital issue. Thesame goes for improving the nutritional value of foods. More than 800 millionpeople still go hungry, and 82 countries (half of them in Africa) neither growenough food, nor can afford to import it. In India alone, 85% of children underfive live below the normal, acceptable state of nutrition.
It is well known that the fear of new and unknown things is a peculiar feature of people.People have already forgotten that a few dozens of years ago the world wasshocked by the discussion about an opportunity of cloning of human beings. Thisopportunity appeared after the successful cloning of frogs.
Several years agothe mankind was shocked by reports in mass media about Dolly the Scottish sheep,which was represented as its founders assert, an exact copy of its geneticmother. American bull Jefferson and the bull, deduced by the French biologistsappeared later. The prospect of work on cloning of a human being is publiclydiscussed.
Cloning of bodiesand fabrics is the problem number one in the field of transplantology,traumatology and in other areas of medicine and biology. Cloned bodies become akind of rescue for people who have got in automobile failures or any otheraccidents or for people who need radical help because of diseases caused byage.
The latest monthsenabled experts to comprehend soberly the situation, to estimate some methodicaland technological difficulties lying in the field of mammal cloning. Cloning ofa human being can create unsuccessful copies, ugly creatures, but all humankindwill be responsible for his or her ugliness. Opponents of female equality and feminism assure that men will not benecessary if cloning is developed. It is absolutely incorrect from thebiological and social points of view. Women were compelled to live without menwho had not come back from wars. Hardly it was useful to somebody. And hardlywomen will be always able to do without man's sexual cells for continuation offuture generations.
So first of all we shall try not to fear of new and unknown things. Andwe shall recollect that cloning constantly occurs in natural conditions whenidentical twins are born. They are identical in their genetic set. It can beeasily proved by an opportunity of changing body parts and fabrics betweenthem. Thus, emotional objections against cloning of people have no rationalbase.
I would like to be a scientist and carry out the experiments of cloningparts of human body. I am absolutely sure that nobody can clone a personbecause it is not a biological object, but it is the result of socializing,communication, background mentality, language etc.
II. The Main Body.
Genetically modifiedfood.
What is genetic modification?
Unlike normal methods of reproduction, genetic modification is done inthe laboratory by cutting, joining and transferring genes between totallyunrelated living things. As a result, combinations of genes which would neveroccur naturally are produced.
Everyone has heard of Dolly the sheep and experiments in the medialfield, but genetic modification is also happening in the food industry. It ispossible to isolate and transfer different characteristics between unrelatedspecies or between plants and animals. For example, the introduction of an“anti-freeze” gene from an Arctic fish into tomatoes or strawberries made themresistant to frost.
Around 40% of the world’s total crop production is lost to pests anddiseases, despite the heavy use of pest-killing chemicals. Cauliflowers are noexception, and suffer damage from aphids and other insects. Scientists havelooked to nature to find a solution to this problem and discovered thatsnowdrops are able to survive attacks from some of the most devastating pests.Snowdrops produce a substance called lectin, which affects insects byinterfering with their digestive systems. The task is to transfer the gene forlectin production, and thus the property of insect resistance, intocauliflowers.
It is known that tomatoes, carrots and peppers are rich in carotenoids,which help prevent cancer ant coronary heart disease. To make things easier forus, scientists are working to produce vegetables that are genetically modifiedto contain increased carotenoid levels. They have already succeeded in creatingtomatoes with more than three times the normal “anti-cancer” power.
Animals can also be “engineered”. When salmon were modified with thegene for cold resistance from the flounder fish, they grew 10 times as fast asnormal salmon because the inserted gene had interfered with their grown harmonegene. A pig was modified with a human gene to make it grow faster and leaner.But these efforts have resulted in numerous problems and serious diseases amongthe experimental animals. [6]
Genetic modification can save the world.
People have different points of view about whether the geneticmodification of food is a good thing – in fact it is quite a controversialtopic. Those involved in the biotechnology business insist it is safe and thatgenetic modification can increase yields, reduce waste and improve the flavourand keeping qualities of products. For example, soft fruits can be made firmerto prevent spoilage during transportation. People in favour of geneticmodification also say that better use can be made of agricultural land as cropscan potentially be modified to grow in hostile conditions, such as those of adrought; this will help in feeding the world. The later is a vital issue. Thesame goes for improving the nutritional value of foods. More than 800 millionpeople still go hungry, and 82 countries (half of them in Africa) neither growenough food, nor can afford to import it. In India alone, 85% of children underfive live below the normal, acceptable state of nutrition.
Many, if not all Southern countries, posses the indigenous geneticresources – requiring no further genetic modification – that can guarantee asustainable food supply. For instance, in a single village of northeast India,70 varieties of rice are grown… Farmers repeatedly used and enchanted somevarieties that were resistant to disease, drought and flood, some that tastednice, some that were coloured and useful for ritual purposes and some that werehighly productive. It seems obvious that there is no need for geneticallymodified crops. On the contrary, they will undermine food security andbiodiversity. The best thing is to sustain existing indigenous agriculturaldiversity as the basis of a secure and nutritious food base for all. [6]
Genetic modification can bedangerous and unpredictable.
But on the other hand, many professional independent observers believegenetic engineering is unpredictable and dangerous. They think that the risksare not worth taking, especially since they are not safe. This science is toonew to guarantee that problems will not occur in the future. When moved fromone species to another, genes can create new unknown dangers. Small changescould have big impacts. Once released into the natural environment, geneticallymodified plants interbreed with those in the wild. The spread of modified genesfrom one organism to another in the wild is technically termed “a gene flow”.It has already led to the creation of new strains of “super weeds” that are resistant to herbicides. Perhapsmost worrying of all, there is no way of recalling a genetic modification. Oncereleased into the environment, genetic pollution cannot be cleaned up; it willsurvive so long as there is life on Earth. The environment will be irreversiblyaltered. Natural plants and animals could be driven out.
Mistakes have already been made in genetic engineering. Use ofgenetically modified bacteria in the food supplement Tryptophan may have caused37 deaths in the USA since 1989 as well as permanently disabling thousands ofpeople.
A company called Pioneer Hi-Bred developed a variety of geneticallymodified soya spliced with a Brazil nut gene to increase its protein content.When it was discovered that individuals allergic to Brazil nuts also reacted tothe modified soya, the company had to withdraw the product.
In a 1994 field test, natural potatoes were planted at a distance of upto 1,100 metres from a batch of genetically modified potatoes. When seeds fromthe unmodified potatoes were later collected, it was found that 72% of thenatural plants grown near the modified batch had absorbed the modified gene,and 35% of those grown further away had also done so. In another study in thesame year, scientists at the Scottish Crop Research Institute found that pollenfrom genetically modified rapeseed had fertilized plants up to 2.5 kilometersaway.
The company Ciba Geigy PLC recently introduced genetically modified maize,which is altered to be resistant to a herbicide and contains a marker gene forresistance to the widely used antibiotic ampicillin. Microorganisms in thestomach could absorb the gene for resistance to the antibiotic and spread intothe environment, leaving a vita medical resource useless. The European Parliament expresses fear thatconsumption of the maize might weaken the effect of some antibiotic medicinesin the human body. And the finite riskcould be absolutely catastrophic if it occurred.
A soil bacterium was modified to break down a particular herbicide. Itdid so, but the unexpected end result was a substance highly toxic to vitalsoil fungi, which were destroyed.
Now just twenty-odd years since this was discovered, experiments haveproduced genetically modified types of most major food crops and these haverecently started to be given legal approval despite opposition from thousandsof organizations who have high lighted the dangers, and without informed publicdebate. A report by 100 US scientists suggested that genetically modifiedorganisms could cause “… irreversible, devastating damage to the technology”.British scientists have also spoken out – Dr. Michael Antoniou, a seniormolecular biologist who has experience in conducting genetic engineering experiments in thelaboratory said: “This is an imperfect technology with inherent dangers”. The Prince of Wales also speaks out aboutgenetic foods. He urges scientists to stop playing God by tinkering with food.He says there is no way of knowing the long-term consequences of producing andeating genetically modified crops, and points to the “man-made” BSE[1]disaster an example of the dangers of the quest for cheap food. The Prince saysthat genetic engineering “takes mankind into realms that belong to ‘God and toGod alone’, “and raises ethical and practical considerations. “Apart fromcertain highly-beneficial and specific medical applications, do we have theright to experiment with and commercialize the building blocks of life? We livein an age of rights – and it seems that it is time that our Creator had somerights too.” Later, an article from The Daily Telegraph continues, “Wesimply do not know the long-term consequences for human health and the widerenvironment of releasing plants bred in this way … The lesson of BSE[1] and other entirely man-made disasters on the road to “cheap food” issurely the greatest cause for concern. Even the best science cannot predict theunpredictable.”
The author of a report on genetic engineering from Brussels, Doug Parr,says, “It’s like the genie in bottle: once it’s out, you cannot put it back.Already there are too many cases of things going wrong.”
Susan Leubuscher of Green Pease’s European Unit in Brussels says, “Thescience of genetic engineering is unpredictable, but few, from scientists togovernments, dare raise the fact that today’s Golden Goose of industryis laying some rotten eggs.” [6]
The problems of labeling genetically modified food.
Do not be surprised if you have not heard much about geneticallymodified foods, because neither the chemical companies who produce them nor thegovernments are exactly running public information campaigns about them.Agricultural biotechnology is big business, and science has been absorbed into industry to an unprecedented extent.Practically all established molecular geneticists have some industrial ties,thus limiting what they can do researchon particularly with regard to safely.The transnational companies will soon be in a position to dictate the future ofthe food industry. And they know just how they want our food to be produced –in ways that will maximize their own profits. That means using the genetechnology which they have patented and can control, despite the risk ofirreversible global consequences for the rest of us.
Some of the food companies are refusing to segregate crops which containmodified genes from those which do not. This makes it impossible to have aproper labeling scheme, which would allow people to make up their minds aboutweather or not they should eat the products of gene technology. Only a fewgenetically modified products are on sale in the supermarkets of Great Britainat the moment. Unfortunately, the situation is changing because of the soyabean. Soya beans are grown mainly in North America and find their way into 60%of all processed foods. For example they are in bread, biscuits, baby foods,chocolate, ice cream and many vegetarian products. The inclusion of soya makesit more than likely that people in Britain are already eating modified soya,whether they like it or not. Monsanto, a giant chemical company, modified asoya bean with genetic material from a virus and a petunia linked to abacterial gene, which has made the soya plant resistant to a weed-killer calledRoundup, which is also manufactured by Monsanto. Companies like Monsanto do notspend millions on a new soya bean because it will feed the poor and starving.They believe it will make their shareholders fabulously wealthy. Farmers haveto sign restrictive contracts promising to use Monsanto’s weed-killers and notgrow their own seed. In the race to spread their modified crops all over theworld, little attention is being paid to the dangers. Perhaps it is the dangerto human health that it most worrying. As our food becomes more and morerefined and synthetic, its nutritional value falls, and unexpected healtheffects are continually surfacing. Some of these do not appear for years, evendecades, after the food was eaten. At the same time, unchanged, unprocessed,natural food may actually become more expensive and harder to find. Even whentoxins aren’t produced, allergies can be triggered unexpectedly. [6]
There is one more thing that comes into question – is it ethical to movegenes around? Introducing genes from bacteria, viruses and even animals intoplants raises serious concerns for many people, in particular vegetarians andthose with certain religious beliefs.
Cloning.
A huge quantity ofdisputes and discussions concerning cloning are carried out nowadays. It is well known that the fear of new and unknown things is a peculiar feature of people. Peoplehave already forgotten that a few dozens of years ago the world was shocked bythe discussion about an opportunity of cloning of a human being. Thisopportunity has appeared after successful cloning of frogs.
Several years ago, thehumankind was shocked by reports in mass media about Dolly the Scottish sheep,which was represented as its founders assert, an exact copy of its geneticmother. American bull Jefferson and the bull, deduced by the French biologistsappeared later. The prospect of work on cloning of a human being is publiclydiscussed.
The latest monthsenabled experts to comprehend soberly the situation, to estimate some methodicaland technological difficulties lying in the field of mammal cloning. Cloning ofa human being can create unsuccessful copies, ugly creatures, but all mankindwill bear the responsibility for his or her ugliness. [3]
Problems facing to cloning.
Cloning of bodiesand fabrics is the problem number one in the field of transplantology,traumatology and in other areas of medicine and biology. Cloned bodies become akind of rescue for people who have got in automobile failures or any otheraccidents or for people who need radical help because of diseases caused byage.
The most evidenteffect of cloning is that childless people will be able to have their ownchildren. Today millions married couples all over the world suffer because theyare doomed to remain without descendants. In our country each sixth or seventhmarried couple is barren. This problem generates so many tragedies and familydramas! This situation can be changed. It is possible to have your own child, yourreal continuation in time. [2]
Cloning will help people who suffer geneticdiseases.
And still. Fans ofexotic things will always exist among humans. They bequeath to send their asheson a rocket aside the Sun. They spend thousands of dollars for saving theirbodies in cryogenic chambers till that time when medicine will manage to returnthem into a normal condition and to relieve them from illnesses which are incurabletoday. Moreover, there also will be fans of exotic things in the field ofcloning. Somebody will wish to see his or her own copy during his or her lives.Others wish to revive during another historical epoch: 50 — 100 years later.
Cloning of the person: arguments in protection.
Cloning of a human person is close to reality due to historicalscientific breakthrough of the doctor Yang Wilmot and his colleagues from GreatBritain. This opportunity potentially gives all of us fabulous advantages. Unfortunately, misleading reports of mass-media and negativeemotional reaction (which was generated by erroneous science fiction)influenced to the discussion of this theme. The negative attitude towards cloningof people is only consequence of fascinating and new idea. If the publicentered into error will impose a full interdiction on cloning of a person, asad episode in the human history would appear. [1]
What is the human clone?
Actually, the clone is not simply an identical twin of some other personand they differ in periods of time. However, science-fiction novels and filmshave created an impression as if human clones are thoughtless zombies, monsterslike Frankenstein, etc. But it is complete nonsense. Human clones will be usualhuman beings, perfect as you and me. They will be born by usual women after 9months of pregnancy; they will be born and will be grown up in a family, aswell as any other child. They will need 18 years to become adults, as otherpeople do. Hence, the clone-twin will be some decades younger than theoriginal; therefore there is no danger, that people will confuse the clone-twinto the original. Just as identical twins, a clone and his donor of DNA willhave various fingerprints. The clone will not inherit anything from memoirs ofthe original individual. Due to all these distinctions, the clone is not anx-copy or the double of his donor, but a younger identical twin. Human cloneswill have the same legal rights and duties, as any other person does. Cloneswill be human beings in the fullest sense. You will not have the right to use aclone as a slave. The slavery was forbidden in the USA in 1865 and then by theUnited Nations Convention of the Human Rights.
It is necessary to emphasize, that the cloning of human beings should becarried out on an individual voluntary basis only. The alive person, shouldgive his or her legal permission. As well as the woman who will bear aclone-twin and then grow this child, should take her own decisions. The womanis required for cloning to bear the child. So, there is no danger thatscientists-villains will create thousands of clones in confidentiallaboratories. Cloning will be done only after requests and with participationof usual people.
What can we expect from human clones? The answer can be found fromexploration of identical twins. The clone repeats the original individual onappearance completely and has the same growth and a constitution. For well-knownsupermodels and movie stars, it can be the most important quality.
The objections, whichare put forward against cloning of the person.
Some politics in the United States now suggest saving us from allmisfortunes connected with cloning of people by legislation. In my opinion, itis an interesting idea but if you examine the problem more soberly, you willsee that serious problems actually do not exist. In several cases when abusingis possible, it can be prevented with the help of legislation. Unique objectionthat remains because of the analysis is that the technology of cloning is notperfect yet. It is a justification for future researching, but not for aninterdiction.
Cloning would reduce a genetic variety;make us more vulnerable to epidemics, etc.
More than 5 billion people exist on this planet. Obviously, cloning of peoplewill carry out in very modest scales because of prospective cost of procedure. Morethan the majority of women will not want to be mothers of clones-twins. Manyyears will pass before the total of clones will reach even 1 million people allover the world. On percentage parity, it would make a microscopic part from thegeneral population and would not influence to genetic variety of people. If insome long-term future cloning becomes widely widespread some restrictions on suchactivity will can be justified. If the clone of each person on a planet is created,a genetic variety will not decrease, there still will be 5 billion geneticallyvarious individuals.
It can lead to creation of monsters or ugly creatures.
Cloning is not the same as genetic engineering. During cloning DNA iscopied. Then one more person appears an exact twin of an existing individual. Therefore, it is not monster or uglycreature. Genetic engineering would mean modification of human DNA. Therefore,there can appear another person, who will not look like to existing. Itpresumably could lead to creation of very unusual people, even monsters.Genetic engineering has big positive potential. It is valid very much andshould be carried out only with the greatest care and under supervision. Cloningis safe and banal in comparison with genetic engineering. If you are afraid ofcloning genetic engineering should horrify you.
Millionaires can clone themselves only to receive parts of bodies fortransplantation.
This is one of silly applications for cloning. The human clone is ahuman being. In a free society, you cannot make somebody to give you one of hisor her parts of body. In addition, you cannot kill other person to receive oneof his parts of body. Existing laws interfere with such abusing. You must alsonotice that if your clone-twin has received a trauma in accident, you can beasked to give one of your kidneys to rescue a life to a clone! If donor of bodyis a child, society can wish to interfere. Actually, removal of any part ofbody of a child for transplantation to other person is very disputable practice,which should be adjusted strictly.
Many future appendices of technology of cloning appear in spheres of transplantationof bodies, skin transplantations for victims of fires, etc.
Do we need 200 clones of Sophie Loren or Sindi Crawford?
If we speak about cloning of an alive person, it is extremelyimprobable, that he will agree to creation of 200 clones. The person will approvecreation no more than 1 or two clones. In addition, we shall recollect, thatclones of the person cannot be made in laboratory in big quantity. Each of themshould be mature by a woman, as well as any other child. How do critics ofcloning represent that it is possible to persuade 200 women to bear theseidentical babies? If we really worry, that it is possible, the society cansimply forbid creation more than two clones of one person.
If we speak about cloning someone, who has already died, the question ofrestriction of quantity of clones-twins will become a reasonable theme forreflections and debates. Moreover, we will have a lot of time for these debates.Certainly, if there are some individuals with identical appearance it will notlead to degradation of human essence of these people. [5]
Cloning of died people.
There is the little-known fact about doctor Vilmut’s procedure ofcloning. It is said to be made with frozen cells. It means that there is nonecessity for cloning, that donor of DNA must be alive. If the sample of afabric of the person is frozen properly, the person could be cloned throughlong time after his death. In case of people, which have already died alsowhose fabrics was not frozen, cloning becomes more complex, and today's technologydoes not allow making it. However, for the biologist it would be very courageousto declare, that this procedure is impossible.
All fabrics of people contain DNA and can potentially be a source forcloning. The list of fabrics includes human hair, bones and teeth.Unfortunately, DNA starts to decay and destroy segments of genetic code someweeks after death. After 60 million years only short fragments DNA of dinosaurswere kept. Therefore, chances of realization of guiro-park are insignificant. However,there are good chances of restoration of sequence DNA from samples of a humanfabric. Imagine a genetic code as a book which paragraphs or pages were left inthe casual image. If we have only one copy of the book, the full text cannot berestored. Fortunately, we have more, than one copy. There can be thousands ofcells in a bone or a sample of a fabric. Each of them has its own copy of DNAcode. It is possible to restore an initial genetic code by combining theinformation from many cells. One more encouraging factor is that only smallpercent from three billions symbols of a genetic code of a person isresponsible for individual distinctions. For example, genetic codes of monkey andpeople coincide on 99%. It means that it is necessary to restore less than 1%of a code, i.e. only that part which defines individual distinctions betweenpeople. Certainly, all this tasks are essentially feasible. [9]
One more opportunity, which gives cloning of human being, can lay inpartial correction of mistakes of the past. Probably, many millions of Naziconcentration camps victims could be cloned for restoration of the lost geneticbranches. The same technology, which would clone Adolph Hitler, is possible touse to clone Anna Frank. Cloning of a human being would be the first offer ofthe world Jewish public as the constructive answer to the Holocaust. The serious concern in genofund pauperization still exists in Russia. Itcaused by Stalin’s mass executions of the best and brightest members of asociety. Cloning could give a chance of a new life to people of the past, whoselives were unfairly and finished early.
The first genetically modified monkey.
On January 11, 2001 in the USA the first genetically modified monkey wasborn. It was named Andy. This name means “inserted DNA” in return perusal.
The monkey was born from ovule in which (маркерный) gene was included. This genecan be seen with the help of a special microscope. Scientists speak, thatsimilar technology can be used for strong modification of genetic material. Withthe help of this modification, it is possible to enter genes of human diseases,for example, a cancer of a breast.
«We can easily make introduction, for example, a gene of Altsgamer’sillness to speed up manufacture of a vaccine against this disease», — told oneof researchers, Professor Dzherald Satan.
Altsgamer’s Illness is the specific form of senile dementia (fulldegradation of the person and disintegration of intelligence).
Cloned kitten was sold for $50000.
Biotechnological company Genetic Savings and Clone (GSC), located inCalifornia, has sold the first cloned kitten for $50 000.
A certain woman from Texas got the kitten. Her personal name is notdisclosed because of fears of prosecution by opponents of cloning. Small Nikkeireminds its «parent» not only in appearance, but also in characterand behaviour.
GSC Company is going to offer owners of died animals to get its copy.
For similar operation, future clients will need to hand samples of theiranimal’s fabrics in a special depository. Alas, until now there are fears aboutsmaller security of clones from every possible illnesses and infections, andalso smaller duration of life. [9]
Stanford University will create the mouse with a human brain.
In 2005, the American National Academy ofSciences plans to present recommendations about ethical experiments on creationof chimeras. The chimera is the mutant, which combines cells, fabrics and partsof bodies of people and animals. Now in the USA the laws, which limit suchexperiments, do not exist. Meanwhile, the quantity of such experiments constantlyincreases.
In particular, director of Steam CellsInstitute of Stanford University professor Irving Vajssman is going to carryout an experiment on creation of mice, which will have a human brain.
The scientist plans to enter human neuronsinto rodent’s brain. Directly ahead of a birth the rodent will be killed. Afteropening of its brain, Vajssman hopes to learn, whether the architecture of ahuman brain will be generated. If it will take place, he will search for tracesof «cognitive features», peculiar to people.
The Californian professor insists that hisexperiment will lead to the best understanding of mechanisms of work of a brain.It will be useful for struggle against a number of diseases.
Another experiment, which causes fear of theAmerican academicians, is a creation of a human who will be born by mice. Forthis purpose, rodents will be genetically modified to make human gametes (spermand ovules) from which a human embryo will be grown up.
The first hybrid embryos were created by the Chinesescientists from the Shanghai medical university in 2003. The scientists managedto connect cells of a human skin with ovules of rabbits. More than hundreds of embryosduring several days developed in laboratory saucers. Then they have beendestroyed for reception from them embryonic steam cells. [9]
Chronology of cloning.
Date
Event
1883
Opening of ovule by the German cytologist Oscar Gertvig.
1943
“Science” Magazineinformed about successful fertilization of the ovule in a test tube.
1978
Birth in England Louise Brown, the first child « from a test tube ».
1981
Professor Shultz received three cloned embryos of the person, but stopped their development.
1985
On January 4 in one of clinics of northern London the girl was born Her mother was Mrs. Cotton (the first-ever substitute mother who was not the biological mother).
1987
Experts of G. Washington’s University, using special enzyme, divided cells of a human germ and cloned them to a stage of 32 cells. Then germs were destroyed. American administration forbade such experiments.
1997
On February 27, «Nature» placed on its cover on a background of a micro photo of ovule well-known Dolly, born in institute Roslyn in Edinburgh.
1997
In the USA Michael Smith issued the book «Clones» in which he told about cloning of people in underground tunnels around of Los Angeles.
1997
Right at the end of December magazine “Science” informed about a birth of six sheep. They were received on Roslyn’s method. Three of them bore a human gene, which is necessary for people who suffer hemophilia.
1998
Chicago physicist Sinai declares creation of laboratory on cloning of people: he asserted that there would not be release from clients at it.
1998
In Moscow the American film «Newcomers. Revival» was shown. Storyline: In 22-century military researchers clone the terrestrial woman to withdraw a small unearthly essence, which was developing in her stomach).
1998
The French scientists declared about the birth of the cloned cow.
II. Conclusion “The future development of cloning and geneticmodification as I see it”.
Some politics in the United States now suggest saving us from allmisfortunes connected with cloning of people by legislation. In my opinion, itis an interesting idea but if you examine the problem more soberly, you willsee that serious problems actually do not exist. In several cases when abusingis possible, it can be prevented with the help of legislation. Unique objectionwhich remains as a result of the analysis is that the technology of cloning isnot perfect yet. It is the justification for future researches and experiments,but not for any interdiction.
Cloning of a human person is close to reality due to historicalscientific breakthrough of the doctor Yang Wilmot and his colleagues from GreatBritain. This opportunity potentially gives all of us fabulous advantages. Unfortunately,reports in mass-media and negative emotional reaction (which was generated byerroneous science fiction) influenced the discussion of this problem. Thenegative attitude towards cloning of people is only consequence of fascinating andnew idea. If the public entered into error will impose a full interdiction oncloning of a person, a sad episode in the human history would appear.
Actually, the clone is not simply identical twin of some other personand they differ in periods. However, science-fiction novels and films havecreated an impression as if human clones are thoughtless zombies, monsters likeFrankenstein, etc. However, it is complete nonsense. Human clones will be usualhuman beings, perfect as you and me. They will be born by usual women after 9 monthsof pregnancy; they will be born and will be grown up in a family, as well asany other child. They will need 18 years to become adults, as other people do.Hence, the clone-twin will be some decades younger than the original; therefore,there is no danger, that people will confuse the clone-twin to the original.Just as identical twins, a clone and his donor of DNA will have various fingerprints.The clone will not inherit anything from memoirs of the original individual.Due to all these distinctions, the clone is not an x-copy or the double of hisdonor, but a younger identical twin. Human clones will have the same legalrights and duties, as any other person does. Clones will be human beings in thefullest sense. You will not have the right to use a clone as a slave. Theslavery was forbidden in the USA in 1865 and then by the United NationsConvention of the Human Rights.
It is necessary to emphasize, that the cloning of human beings should becarried out on an individual voluntary basis only. The alive person should givehis or her legal permission. As well as the woman who will bear a clone-twinand then grow this child, should take her own decisions. A woman is required forcloning to bear a child. Therefore, there is no danger that scientists-villainswill create thousands of clones in confidential laboratories. Cloning will becarried out only after requests and with necessary participation of usualpeople.
What can we expect from human clones? The answer can be found from explorationof identical twins. The clone repeats completely the appearance of the originalindividual and has the same growth and a constitution. For well-known supermodelsand movie stars it can be the most important feature.
One more opportunity, cloning gives a human being a possibility tocorrect some mistakes of the past. Probably, many millions of Naziconcentration camps victims could be cloned for restoration of the lost geneticbranches. The same technology, which makes it possible to clone Adolph Hitler,can be used to clone Anna Frank. Cloning of a human being would be the firstoffer of the World Jewish Community as the constructive answer to the Holocaust.The serious concern in genofund pauperization still exists in Russia. It is causedby Stalin’s mass executions of the best and brightest members of the Sovietsociety. Cloning could give a chance of a new life to people from the past,whose lives were unfairly and finished early.
It is obvious, that cloning of a human being has enormous potentialadvantages and some possible negative consequences. The unique threat is ourown narrow intellectual self-satisfaction. As well as it has happened with manyscientific achievements of the past, such as planes and computers. Clones of ahuman can make a contribution in the field of scientific progress and culturaldevelopment. In the certain cases possible abuses of cloning can be preventedwith the help of the special legislation. With a drop of common sense andreasonable regulation, cloning of people is not something, which is necessaryto be afraid of. We should expect it with impatience. In addition, we shouldsupport scientific researches, which will speed up realization of cloning.Exclusive people are the greatest treasures of the world. Cloning will allow usto keep and restore these treasures.
As you have already understood, there are two opinions concerningcloning: «to be afraid of the further cloning» and «to thumb the tub[2]of the project». I support the second opinion. Let's remember those far yearswhen people’s religious beliefs forbade visiting doctors. But now the humankindcannot live without medicines and medicine. However, there are people who rejectmedical aid. Dozens of years will pass and cloning will be as natural satellitefor humankind as now medicine is for us.
Let’sremember genetic modification.It is well known that there is the big progress inthis area at the present time.
It is known that tomatoes, carrots and peppers are rich in carotenoids,which help prevent cancer ant coronary heart disease. To make things easier forus, scientists are working to produce vegetables that are genetically modifiedto contain increased carotenoid levels. They have already succeeded in creatingtomatoes with more than three times the normal “anti-cancer” power.
Animals can also be “engineered”. When salmon were modified with thegene for cold resistance from the flounder fish, they grew 10 times as fast asnormal salmon because the inserted gene had interfered with their grown harmonegene. A pig was modified with a human gene to make it grow faster and leaner.But these efforts have resulted in numerous problems and serious diseases amongthe experimental animals.
In a 1994 field test, natural potatoes were planted at a distance of upto 1,100 metres from a batch of genetically modified potatoes. When seeds fromthe unmodified potatoes were later collected, it was found that 72% of thenatural plants grown near the modified batch had absorbed the modified gene,and 35% of those grown further away had also done so. In another study in thesame year, scientists at the Scottish Crop Research Institute found that pollenfrom genetically modified rapeseed had fertilized plants up to 2.5 kilometersaway.
Учитывая то, что генная инженерияможет привнести в продукты ранее не известные опасные свойства, каждыйгенетически модифицированный продукт должен быть подвергнут обследованию,способному выявить самый широкий спектр возможных опасностей.
Taking into account that genetic engineering can introduce unknowndangerous properties in products; each genetically modified product should besubjected to the inspection (which should be capable to reveal the widestspectrum of possible dangers).
I think that nowadays cloning ofpeople is a problem of far future. Probably, after centuries, our plan