A brief history Human cloning defines the act of producing a genetically identical copy of a human.

To date, no human has yet been successfully cloned as it is regarded as a highly controversial issue. (Australian Academy of Science, 1999). The prospect of cloning humans did not come about as a sudden spark of intellect. Rather, it was made possible by experiments conducted more than a century ago for a different purpose and the idea of human cloning developed with time. The first cloning dates back to the late 1800s, where Hans Adolf Eduard Driesch separated a two-celled embryo of a sea urchin by shaking it in a beaker of sea water. The two separated cells then developed into two sea urchins, making it the first animal to be cloned. Later in 1902, Hans Spemann split an early embryo at the two-cell stage of a salamander using a strand of hair from his infant child and both separate cells developed into normal adult salamanders. These experiments were performed with no intention to clone an organism, and were presented as a refutation to August Weismanns theory that the genetic information in a cell divides by half with every cell division (McKinnell, 1979). In 1928, Spemann continued his research with salamander embryos and successfully conducted the first nuclear transplant experiment. He demonstrated that the nucleus of an early embryo could direct the development of a cell into an entire organism and expressed wishes to implant a nucleus from a more differentiated cell into an enucleated egg (Gilbert, 2000). Today, modern cloning methods involving nuclear transfer have led to the successful cloning of many species with Dolly being the most publicised clone of all. The world-famous sheep made known by Ian Wilmut and Keith Campbell was the first to be cloned from a fully differentiated adult somatic cell, unlike previous clones which were derived from early embryonic cells. The birth of Dolly proves that it is not impossible for a specialised cell that only expresses certain genes can be reprogrammed to express an entirely different set of genes and ultimately producing a whole new organism (Wilmut et al., 1997). The implication is remarkable: it is not impossible to clone a human being.

Human cloning: The prospects There are two main types of human cloning that have been proposed (Bioarts, 20022011). Therapeutic cloning refers to the process of using artificially duplicated human cells for use in the medical field. Its potential role in regenerative medicine has led to active research in this discipline. Therapeutic cloning involves the use of stem cells for its ability to differentiate into a diverse range of specialised cells and its self-renewal properties. Active research on stem cells has led to speculations that human organs can be regenerated for clinical use. By providing a bio-artificial 3D scaffold for stem cells to multiply on, researchers have successfully developed functional organs of animals and humans in their laboratory leading them to strongly believe that cell regeneration and repair holds tremendous prospect in therapeutics.

Already with the shortage of organ donors today, patients with organ failures are further challenged with the fact that the chances of receiving a compatible organ transplant is extremely low. If the dream of successfully growing any human organ in a laboratory can be realised, there will be no need for patients with organ failures to wait a lifetime for a donor in the future (Noonan, 2012). The wait for an organ to grow from proliferative cells is definitely shorter than the wait for a suitable donor, more so when time is of essence to the health of the patient. The possibility of lab-grown organs also promises a constant availability of organs whenever necessary. Cases of organ transplantation are always accompanied with some level of concern that the body of the recipient may eventually reject the donors organ. But this may not be the case when therapeutic cloning comes into the picture. If the transplanted organ was grafted from the cells of the organ recipient, it is highly likely that the new organ will very much be well-tolerated by the body of the recipient (Glausiusz, 2011). The clonal self-renewal capacity of stem cells is also suggestive of its role in wound healing and repair of damaged human tissues such as heart, brain, liver, kidney and skeletal tissues. It is believed that the stems cells are stimulated by niche cells within its microenvironment to generate progeny cells (Norman and Lodwick, 2007). Aside from the clinical importance, stem cells may make its way to contribute in aesthetic regeneration. However, the credibility of stem cell therapy in cosmetic products is still highly questionable (Kam, 2010). Many women in their beauty frenzy have been lured by unscrupulous cosmetic producers with words like rejuvenation and cell renewal. The other type of cloning is called reproductive cloning where an organism is the replica of another that already exist or has existed in the past. In other words, it is exactly the stereotypical idea of cloning the creation of a human double. Reproductive cloning could be the answer to couples who cannot conceive a child. This method fulfils the wish of those who want their child to be genetically related to them without the need for an anonymous sperm or egg donor. Of course, reproductive cloning does not limit the clonal child to be genetically identical to either one of the expecting parent. Some couples may imagine raising a child who would grow up to be just like that well-respected public figure or some genius. Maybe the world needs more than just one Albert Einstein. A market for cloned embryos from these superior individuals (Human Genetics Alert, 2004) may cause a massive protest, but may very well received by parents who expect more than just an average child. Barbara Katz Rothman, a Professor of Sociology at the City University of New York once said, If normal procreation is the roll of a hundred thousand dice, a random dip in the gene pool, cloning is a carefully placed order of human beings. Parents always want what is best for their children, and maybe this could be the best gift ever the best possible genetic start in life. Some people support the motion of human cloning for the purpose of cloning a dead family member. The loss of a favourite item can be bought back by monetary terms, but can the loss of a favourite person be substituted the same way? When we address an emotional topic as such, we should not only consider the emotions of the people suffering from the loss of a loved one but also that of the yet unborn. Without a personal identity, the cloned child will only be living shadow of a dead person.

Human cloning: And the buts The ethical issues concerning human cloning has not been resolved. There is a massive controversy regarding human cloning as it allows man to take control of nature. There will be loads of protest from various religious if human cloning or creating human being artificially legalised in the future (Amy Lonston, 1999). Besides, some people believe human cloning is against the religious belief to clone instead of reproducing. The creation of life outside marriage goes against Gods rule and laws. Besides, human cloning may give rise to certain technical and medical issues. Technically, human cells grow older with age as determined by the shortening of telomeres. The cloned individual will retain the age of the donors cell at the point when cloning was conducted and begin aging from there (Gary Wickman). Thus, cloned humans would suffer from old age meaning symptoms normally associated with the elderly like hip and joint problems much earlier in their lives (Bmielenhausen, 2009). Furthermore, human cloning has the potential to alter the gene pool. Human cloning may reduce genetic variability. Producing many clones will result in creating a population that is less diverse and it defeats the intrinsic cellular mechanisms in the human body to produce variation. Thus, this population would be susceptible to the same disease. It means that one disease could devastate an entire population (Reports of The Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs of the American Medical Association, 1999). In addition to the concern about individual privacy and identity, the implication of human cloning to family and society remain uncharted. Human cloning will disrupt the normal family unit to include clone children. Human cloning will disrupt natural procreation process because everyone may want an exact copy of themselves, instead of just passing on half of their genetic information. However, the clone individual might not receive their share of respect and acceptance in the society. There will be unsettling opinions about the rights granted to a clone. Ambiguity then arises about the relations of a cloned child with the progenitor. The cloned child is not really a couples genetic child, but the child of only one of them. The imbalance may produce strains on the marriage the child might suffer identity confusion, and there is a risk of perpetuating the cause of sterility (UNESCO, 2005). The cloned children may not have the sense of coming from a maternal and parental line with attributes coming from both parents, and may not feel that they are unique individuals (Nestor, M. M., 2009). The real beauty of humanity lies in the differences amongst each other. Thus, human cloning would destroy the element of surprise and uniqueness between individuals. The implication of human cloning also will confuse the personal identity and harming the psychological development of a clone. It will threaten personal identity and individuality, which in turn could lead to reduced autonomy of the person conceived through cloning. The cloned individual may experience serious concern about her or his identity, not only because of identical appearance to another human being, but because her identical clones might be her father or mother. In addition, the society is bound to compare the performances of a cloned person with the performances of her alter ego. Thus, human cloning violated each individuals right to his or her own genetic identity (Katrien Devolder, 2008).

The problem by human cloning is that it could promote trends eugenics practices, towards designer babies and human enhancement. Human cloning and enhancement technologies may result in a society in which parents will not accept their child for what it is, reinforcing an already existing trend of heavily managed, high-pressure child-rearing or hyper-parenting (Sandel, M. J., 2007). Furthermore, if cloning is used to have better children, it may create a more intolerant climate towards the disables and the diseases. This practise can express negative judgements about people disabilities and the argument has also been advanced in the debate about selective abortion, prenatal testing and preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Lastly, human cloning is a practise against human dignity (UNESCO, 1997). The possibility human cloning represent violation of the two fundamental principles on which all human right are based the principle of equality among human beings and the principle of non-discrimination.

Should we clone humans? For the past few years there has been heated controversy on the topic of cloning human beings. There are religious, ethical, moral, social, legal, political, and other such issues surrounding human cloning. There are also issues of the disadvantages or potential benefits of cloning. Much of debates are human cloning is either "playing God" or a breakthrough in the scientific field. The cloning of human beings has the potential for resolving many problems and provides answers to many medical problems, but it also holds the potential for creating just as many problems if the use of this technology is abused. One author states that reproducing animals or humans through cloning is an inappropriate means of reproduction because "species survive by genetic heterogeneity (Logston, 1999). The increasing susceptibility to death due to changing conditions was brought on by loss of variation within species which is a direct result of asexual reproduction. From our stand, we believe that therapeutic cloning should be allowed as this would be beneficial. Reproductive cloning, on the contrary, should be strictly prohibited. Even Ian Wilmut, one of Dollys co-creators, is opposed to human cloning. He stated, "We think it would be ethically unacceptable and certainly would not want to be involved in that project." He personally has still not heard of a potential use of this technique to produce a new person that he would find ethically acceptable. Willmut added, "I hope that . . . we do not see human cloning in our lifetimes". (Dorning, 1997). The science of cloning is still highly experimental and some scientists believe that todays technology is just not ready to be tested on humans. Embryos either die some time during gestation or shortly after birth or are simply not suitable for implanting into the uterus. Nearly 98 % of cloning trials end in failure (Kolata, 2001). With this high rate of failure, it would be very inhumane to attempt this technique on humans. There is no knowing to what the future holds for this new technology of human cloning. Cloning, like all science, must be used responsibly. Since cloning also holds some benefits, the law maker should exercise caution in crafting legislation for cloning so that the society does not lose the opportunity to develop new treatments. Any misuse of human cloning techniques should be prohibited so that this technology will never head in the direction of creating the perfect human being.

Reference Amy Longston. (1999). The Ethics of Human Cloning. Unpublished thesis, Saint Vincent College. Australian Academy of Science (1999). On human cloning: A position statement. Bmielenhausen. (2009). Ethical Issues Surrounding Human Cloning. Retrieved 22, November, 2012 from http://planetparadigm.wordpress.com Bioarts. (2002-2011). The Human Cloning Debate. Retrieved from Bioarts.com: http://www.bioarts.com/team_park.htm Dorning, M. (1997, March 13). Human Cloning Curbs Urged. Chicago Tribune News. Gary Wickman. Potential Dangers of Human Cloning. Retrieved 23, November, 2012 from http://www.healthguidance.org Gilbert, S. F. (2000). Developmental Biology. Sunderland: Sinauer Associates. Glausiusz, J. (2011). The Big Idea: Organ Regeneration. National Geographic Magazine. Human Genetics Alert. (2004). Reproductive cloning: ethical and social issues. London. Kam, P. (2010, December 13). Credibility of stem cell therapy offered by cosmetic products. The Star. Katrien Devolder. (2008). Cloning. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Kolata, G. (2001). In Cloning, Failure Far Exceeds Success. The New York Times.

Logston, A. (1999). The Ethics Of Human Cloning. Lori B. Andrews, J.D. Cloning Human Beings: The Current and Future Legal Status of Cloning. Commissioned paper, Chicago-Kent College of Law. McKinnell, R. G. (1979). Cloning of Frogs, Mice, and other Animals. United States of America: University of Minnesota Press. Nestor, M. M. (2007). Psychological and Ideological Aspects of Human Cloning: A Transition to a Transhumanist Psychology. Journal of Evolution & Technology, 20, 19-42. Noonan, J. (2012) Lab-Grown 'Custom' Organs May Be Future of Medicine. ABC News Medical Unit.

Norman, R. I., Lodwick, D. (2007). The Flesh and Bones of Medical Cell Biology. United Kingdom: Elsevier Health Sciences. Reports of The Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs of the American Medical Association. (1999). Washington, D. C. Sandel, M. J. (2007). The Case Against Perfection. Ethics in the Age of Genetic Engineering. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Savulescu, J. (2005). How will history judge cloning?. Times Higher Education. Scientific, J. (2011). The Meeting of The National Academy of Sciences on Human Cloning. Jupiter Scientific . The Ethics of Human Cloning. Retrieved 22, November, 2012 from http://www.ama-assn.org United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (2005). Human Cloning: Ethical Issues. Wilmut, I., et al. (1997). Viable offspring derived from fetal and adult mammalian cells. Nature, 385(6619): 810-813.