In 1996, the successful cloning of a sheep stirred a tremendous debate around the ethics of this practice and its implications for the future of humankind. Indeed, once, cloning from a single adult somatic cell without sexual reproduction used to only exist in science fiction. Before 1996, not once had scientists succeeded in creating a genetic twin of a mammal. However, the 90s’ experimentations made cloning a reality, and frightening reality for many people. Public response was quick and overwhelmingly, one of grave concern. Once again, journalists became major influencers and shared their opinions with the general population. Some approached the issue without sentiment and outlined possible perspectives of cloning. Others, however, resorted to fear-mongering and deemed it necessary to warn their readers about the threats of this practice. This paper analyzes two articles by Kevles and Krauthammer with vastly different views and points out their strengths and weaknesses.
Kevles wrote a “Study Cloning. Don’t Ban It” piece in support of legal and appropriately regulated cloning and managed to be outstandingly convincing while making his point. First, he challenged the very notion of an “ethically acceptable practice.” He gave an example of in vitro fertilization that was once seen as immoral and even akin to adultery. However, as time passed by and people were able to look at the advantages of that biological innovation, that type of fertilization became widely accepted. Kevles was sure that the same might happen with cloning. Further, according to the author, banning something often resulted in the prohibited practice going offshore and thus, off the radars of the authorities. Therefore, if cloning becomes forbidden, there will be attempts to clone illegally, which in turn will be extremely difficult to regulate. In his argument, Kevles called for greater acceptance and identified possible threats of cloning; however, he showed how they might be overcome, thus, providing a logical and level-headed response.
In “Of Headless Mice… and Men”, Krauthammer opposed the practice of cloning, and although he had a point, it became moot in the presence of the emotion that the author put in his piece. One characteristic of Krauthammer’s article that immediately stands out is an expressive language that encourages the reader to take the author’s side. For instance, he called cloned mice “animal monsters” and the organs of the cloned creatures “ripe for plundering.” The author put together an appalling image that was bound to repel the reader. Furthermore, Krauthammer made some ungrounded claims, for example, he speculated that humans would be next to be cloned for the sake of organ transplantation. At that, he based his assumption on one biologist’s opinion on the feasibility of that happening. Although Krauthammer’s concern seemed genuine and one should indeed entertain the idea of cloning going out of control and breaching the ethical bounds, the author gave no alternative to banning it altogether. All in all, Krauthammer’s piece appears to be profusely emotional, and the lack of perspectives other than prohibition undermines his argument.
Every complex ethical issue, especially if it is caused by the emergence of scientific innovation, finds its supporters and opponents. Public opinion may shift considerably depending on how mass media presents the problem. This paper compared Kevles’ and Krauthammer’s arguments about cloning, and Kevles seemed to have made a stronger point. The author used logic, spared unnecessary sentiments, and offered a viable solution to keep cloning legal and regulated. His opponent, on the other hand, resorted to emotional pleas and failed to explain how a complete ban may help tackle the issues associated with cloning.