Introduction
Presently, ethics has saturated rational components of, notably influencing most human behaviors. Several actions executed by individuals reflect their ethical attitudes as regards to the section of society affected by such actions. Furthermore, inquiries regularly emerge concerning an executed act whether it was morally correct or ethically erroneous. Notably, the risks associated with the actions necessitate making inquiries. Again, individuals question the acceptability or unacceptability risks, which make some actions plausible. This paper uses a journal publication authored by Autumn Fiester “Ethical Issues in Animal Cloning” (Fiester, 2005). The paper investigates the validity of the information availed while arguing about “pro and con’s” of ethics. Further, the validity of the author and the publication source also gain attention in this paper.
Validity of the Author and Publication Source
Autumn Fiester completed the writing of “Ethical Issues in Animal Cloning.” initially this work appeared in the journal of “Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, Volume 48, and Issue 2, June 2005, pages 328-343” (Fiester, 2005). Further, Scholarly Commons posted it in its database of bioethics. “Johns Hopkins University Press” availed the publication and they permitted further production of copyrights. DR. Autumn Fiester’s background entails “graduate studies director, Medical Ethics Department, School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania.” (University of Pennsylvania). The author has a rich background of writing and research in “clinical ethics, mediation, animals & bioethics and moral theory” (University of Pennsylvania). With “Masters of Sociology from Harvard University,” Dr. Autumn later acquired her “PhD in Moral Philosophy from the University of Pennsylvania” (University of Pennsylvania). Dr. Autumn has a robust experience in bioethics, thus it is imperative to conclude that this work contain valid information. Furthermore, the publication source, “Johns Hopkins University Press” remains valid owing to its long period of operation (University of Pennsylvania).
Validity of the Information on Pro and Con’s Of Ethics in Cloning
Dr. Autumn concurs that conflicts emerge presently between segments of the society and the scientists as regards to populace reproductive cloning. Apparently, the society observes the shortcomings of cloning thus advocating for its ban while researchers continue with aggressive investigations. Progress in animal cloning emanated from the initial attempt, which generated a pair of lambs “Megan and Morag” at “Roslin Institute in Scotland” (Fiester, 2005). Later, the institute cloned a Dolly sheep. Currently, transgenic animals that contain genes availed from diverse groups help in treating maladies in individuals. Notably, most animal cloning activities visualize improving conditions for humanities as regards to healing ailments, augmented food production, and amusement.
Perhaps, duplicating animals through research generates enquiries into the risks, which accompany the act. Morality questions for this action regard its unforeseen negative ramifications on animals, people, and the surroundings’ (Drummond, 2004). Additionally, it potentially contravenes moral codes. Studies proffer that, though misunderstood, the science subject animals to unnecessary hurting experiences. Engineered animals suffer because of low efficiency thus causing huge amounts of deaths and pregnancy related predicaments including miscarriage. Furthermore, painful incidents emerge while obtaining egg from donor animal, which happens surgically, and placing the embryo into a surrogate animal. The cloned animals experience poor health thus causing early casualty.
Challengers of cloning also avail arguments entailing the far-reaching ramifications of clones on the environment (Drummond, 2004). Cloning aimed at conservation together with livestock pose ecological challenges to other species. Ethical reasoning also emerges as regards to whether people tend to act as God in creating offspring using research. Again, it is observable that, through research people tend to treat animals as objects, which lacks life. No wander, scientists defraud the public by making them feel their dead pets are replaceable through cloning. Arguably, this aspect emerges as morally wrong since; in since sorrowful pet owners also believe that cloning revive their dead pets (Panno, 2005).
Individuals who argue for cloning point the escalating success rates in research. Thus, animals, which emerge from duplications, contain sound health with little developmental problems. They invite critics to argue for painful experience for cloned animals considering customary applications relating them to research and food production (Panno, 2005). Additionally, they observe that, cloning animals is morally right when compared to standards of harm. The proponents avail arguments that entail appraising the benefits of cloning animals to people. Thus when benefits to public and animals appear outweigh their investigation costs, then cloning should apply until harmony of inconsistencies is attained (Panno, 2005).
Proponents argue that alteration of organisms has pronged from past eras. They observe that, customary alterations failed to gain criticism thus even current science should appear moral. Further, they declare that, through science unknown things are understood stimulating researchers interest for more breakthroughs (Fiester, 2005). Arguably, they affirm that, God created people to apply skills into understanding animals hence God endowed humanity with superiority over nature including animals. Thus, even the initiation of technology gains attention as way of dominating nature.
Conclusion
Animal cloning attracts attention from larger society components due to the negative consequences. However, scientists also gain hopes because of the progresses achieved in cloning animals. The public’s view regarding justification of scientists to subject animals through painful incidents appear to be taking up God’s duty. Their reasoning has so far failed to gain attention but seemingly, their enquiries contain valid emotions, which require deliberation. Disregarding these sentiments potentially affects anticipated marketability and people’s approval of cloned products for agricultural, together with medical gains.
References
Drummond, C. (2004). The Ethics of Nature. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Fiester, A. (2005). Ethical Issues in Animal Cloning. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, Vol. 48, Is. 3: 328–431.
Panno, J. (2005). Animal Cloning: The Science of Nuclear Transfer. New York, NY: InfoBase Publishing.
University of Pennsylvania. (ND). Autumn Fiester. Web.