This document will cover the concepts of cloning and the process that must follow to achieve a certain experiment and the participation of the United States in the genetic mutation, and the legal action that took place through the presence of many to achieve exactly what we have with the rules, and the ethical ability to clone humans. In the first section, the article will review the science that must be carried out for the cloning to occur and the cause and effect of creating clones. This document will also review scientific research and then how the United States government can apply the laws.
Keywords: cloning, United States, gene therapy, therapeutic cloning.
Throughout time, the human race has always been able to adapt and adapt to its environment. By conforming and adapting, the human race was able to create a biological inheritance that makes it possible for humans to achieve what no other organism can achieve. The biological inheritance in human beings is very similar to any other organism of sexual reproduction on earth; reproduction is caused by the transmission of genetic information encoded in the DNA from one generation to another in the sex cells. For example, parents to their children, and only inherited traits can be transmitted to the progeny. There is no scientific basis for affirming that the biological evolution of humanity has stopped there, and other technologically advanced countries have demonstrated this.
127 our experts are availableright now
The proposal to improve human genetics has been referred to as ‘therapeutic cloning’ that in the future may offer greater possibilities for organ transplantation, nerve cells and tissue healing and other health benefits. ‘Therapeutic cloning’ is known more as ‘reproductive cloning’ and uses nuclear somatic cell transfer (SCNT) to obtain eggs that could become adult individuals. Biologists use the term cloning with variable meanings, although all uses imply obtaining more or less precise copies of a biological entity. Three common uses refer to cloning genes, cloning cells and cloning of individuals.
Human cloning has been occasionally suggested and admired as a way to improve the genetic endowment of humanity, cloning individuals of great achievement. Great achievements include: sports, music, art, science, literature and politics, individuals have expressed a desire to be cloned, and some doctors have announced at times that they were ready to carry out the cloning process. The genes of an individual, the genome, can be cloned, but the individual itself can not be cloned.
Gene cloning or, more generally, cloning of DNA segments is done routinely in many pharmaceutical laboratories in the United States and the world. The technologies for the cloning of cells in the laboratory are seven decades old and are used to reproduce a particular type of cell, for example, the skin or a liver cell, to investigate its characteristics. Individual human cloning occurs naturally in the case of identical twins when two individuals develop from a single fertilized egg. These twins are called identical, precisely because they are genetically identical to each other.
It might be possible to clone a person’s genes, but the individual can not be cloned. The character, personality and characteristics that are not anatomical and physiological that make up the individual are not precisely determined by the genotype.
The genetic makeup of an individual is its genotype. The phenotype refers to what the individual is, which includes not only the external appearance or anatomy of the individual, but also their physiology, as well as the predispositions and behavioral attributes, which encompass intellectual abilities, moral values, aesthetic preferences, religious values and, in general, all other characteristics or behavioral traits, acquired by experience, imitation, learning or in any other way throughout the life of the individual, from conception to death. The phenotype results from complex interactions between genes and the environment. DNA and proteins give us the best information about the relationship we have between each of the primates and with each other.
In the twentieth century, as more dramatic advances were made in genetic knowledge, also in genetic technology known as ‘genetic engineering’, some proposals have been advanced, more suggestions that should be explored and considered as possibilities once . The technologies had progressed enough. Most of these proposals are wrong. It should be evident that, as indicated above, it is not possible to clone a human individual. Trying to multiply the great aspects of humanity, such as people of great intelligence or character, we could get the likes of Stalin, Hitler or Bin Laden. As Nobel Prize geneticist George W. Beadle said many years ago: ‘Few of us would have advocated the preferential multiplication of Hitler’s genes.
However, who can say that in a different cultural context? Hitler may not have been one of the true great leaders of men, or that Einstein was not a political villain. ‘ Are there circumstances that would justify the cloning of a person, because he or she wants it? One might think of a couple unable to have children, a man or a woman who does not want to get married, or two lesbian lovers who want to have a child with the genotype of one in an egg of the other, or of another special person. Cases that may come to mind. Many do not recognize that the fatal difference in the outcome of the individual produced by cloning would be a person very different from that whose genotype is cloned, as indicated above.
Ethical, social and religious values will come into play when deciding whether a person can be allowed to be cloned. Most people probably disapprove. Many countries have banned human cloning. In the United States, there are currently no federal laws that completely prohibit cloning. Thirteen states (Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Iowa, Indiana, Massachusetts, Maryland, Michigan, North Dakota, New Jersey, Rhode Island, South Dakota and Virginia) prohibit reproductive cloning and three states (Arizona, Maryland and Missouri) prohibit use of public funds for research on reproductive cloning (United States cloning policy.)
The first effort of Congress to ban human cloning was introduced in the House of Representatives in early March 1997. Sponsored by the Representative Vernon Ehlers, the short bill proposed that it be illegal for a person to use a human somatic cell for the production process of a human clone, ‘and offenders may face a civil penalty of up to $ 5,000. , presented at the end of January 1998 by Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell, proposed that it be ‘illegal for any person … to clone a human being’, either to investigate pregnancy, therapy or to start a pregnancy (United States Opinions on cloning (September 23, 2002). (n.d.).
A civil penalty of up to $ 5,000 was also proposed to this bill. Just days later, Senator Dianne Feinstein presented a bill that would have made it ‘illegal for any person or other legal, public or private entity’ to ‘implant or attempt to implant the product of the nuclear transfer of somatic cells in the Uterus of a woman. ‘The bill, which would have expired after ten years, included a fine of $ 1,000,000.’ One thing they did not realize at the time was that the cloning of embryonic stem cells could have important health applications, such as In addition, the United States adopted the position that a global and global prohibition against the creation of cloned human beings is needed for any purpose, and President Bush referred to this position when he addressed the issue in April 2002. President said: ‘I believe that all human cloning is wrong, and that both forms of cloning should be prohibited.
Anything other than a total ban on human cloning would not be ethical. ‘Research cloning would contradict the most fundamental principle of medical ethics, that no human life should be exploited or extinguished for the benefit of another.’ (Cloning policy in the United States.) The Ad Hoc Committee held discussions that indicated many different opinions on the proposal, proponents of the convention to ban human reproductive cloning have slightly modified their proposal. ‘step by step’ to address these complex bioethical problems First, there would be a ban on the reproductive cloning of human beings.This could lead, at a later stage, to ‘measures related to the regulation of other types of cloning by States interested parties, including through the development of a separate international instrument. ‘(United States opinion on cloning (September 23, 2002). (nd)
In addition, a ban on reproductive cloning would be impossible to enforce in an environment that would allow ‘therapeutic cloning’ in laboratories, and we believe that we should actively seek medical benefits s and potential scientists from research with adult stem cells. This would also allow policy makers and the public to develop more information to make judgments about human cloning and for the establishment of regulatory structures to monitor the applications of cloning technology that society considers acceptable. More than half of the fifty states currently do not have laws that address cloning. However, due to laws in several states open to interpretation.
For example, a 1973 statute in Minnesota it would seem to prohibit the destruction of cloned human embryos for research. Lee: Whoever uses or allows the use of a living human concept for any type of scientific research, laboratory or other experimentation, except to protect the life or health of the concepts, or except as provided in this document, will be guilty of a serious fault . Financing practices also vary widely among states. Controversies related to federal and state cloning policies have focused on three main issues: first, whether the different types of cloning should be governed differently; secondly, whether taxpayer dollars should be used to finance research related to cloning; and finally, if scientists can pay women for the supply of eggs, and other questions related to the regulation of the purchase of eggs. Five states (Arizona, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan and Nebraska) prohibit public funding for any type of cloning research.
Some states officially authorize public funds for biomedical cloning research, such as California, where a 2004 initiative created a 10-year, $ 3-billion commitment for stem cell research, including cloning research for biomedical and New York , where the state government has granted more than $ 300 million to fund stem cell research since 2007. Meanwhile, other states have not approved funding bans simply because the legislatures there will probably not approve, so a ban would be considered unnecessary Missouri does not have a permanent legal ban on funding for cloning research, but since 2007, the legislature has regularly included bills that restrict funding for human cloning.
Oregon, where the first successful human cloning experiments were conducted in 2013, does not have laws that restrict, explicitly allow or fund human cloning. State laws regarding compensation for egg collection also vary widely, even among states that strongly support cloning for biomedical research. California prohibits compensation beyond reimbursement for direct expenses to women who provide eggs for research. For this reason, laboratories funded by public funds in California have not been able to use the cell lines created by the Mitalipov laboratory, which paid consumers up to $ 5,000 per egg. Massachusetts has also adopted a policy that prohibits any payment to women who provide eggs for research. New York, on the other hand, allows to compensate those who lower the eggs in their facilities with public support. As described in the previous sections, human cloning participants in the United States have tended to seek a federal law that prohibits cloning at the national level.
In December 1994, President Clinton used his executive authority to ban federal funding for embryos created specifically for research purposes. Congress followed the following year by passing the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, which banned federal funding for ‘the creation of a human embryo or embryos for research purposes’ or for research ‘in which embryos are created or destroyed.’ (Witherspoon Council.) (2018 July 11) In 1997, laws were modified to further address the cloning technique, and President Clinton sent a memorandum to the heads of executive departments and agencies in which he ordered that no funds be allocated. ‘A legislative effort to enact President Clinton’s executive policy was never voted.’ Another legislative approach, which would have prohibited the federal government from entering into any contract with organizations that conducted cloning research for biomedical research in the preceding year, it was proposed repeatedly by Representative Ron Paul, but it did not get anywhere (Witherspoon Council. (2018, July 11)
In 2001, President George W. Bush announced that his administration would allow federal funding of the research done on lines of human embryonic stem cells that had already been derived before Your policy will be announced This meant that even if researchers financed by the private sector managed to derive stem cells through cloning, research with those stem cells would not have been eligible to receive federal funds during the Bush administration. From 2005 to 2007, the Congress passed legislation, mainly with the support of the Democrats, which would have overturned Bush’s policy and made federal funds available for research on embryonic stem cells, but President Bush vetoed both bills. In March 2009, President Barack Obama implemented a new policy authorizing the director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to ‘support and carry out research on responsible and scientifically valuable human stem cells, including research on human embryonic stem cells, to the extent permitted by law. ‘(Witherspoon Council.) (2018, July 11)
In announcing his policy, President Obama declared that cloning to produce children’ is dangerous, deeply erroneous, and has no place in our society or in any society. ‘A few months later, the NIH explained in detail the details of the new policy, including the stipulation that research with stem cells derived from human cloning would not be eligible for receive funds from the government, President Obama elaborated his policy of financing stem cells, there were no embryonic stem cells cloned embryo lines, and it was not clear at that time if there ever would be. Each incremental discovery can be understood as bringing us closer to cloning to produce children. However, it is important to pursue similar laws at the state level as well, in case federal courts annul federal laws for constitutional or other reasons.
