Annotated Bibliography: Cloning

I chose the topic of cloning because I believe it’s something that could be of great advantage in the future for us humans. Cloning has a lot of different aspects and I will be talking about several in this bibliography. I have some different views about cloning. I believe that if it is helpful then we should continue studying it further for the great advancements that are possible. Some believe that it should not be done because there are ethical issues regarding some of the procedures. I’m going to use this paper to help you and me understand the different views of cloning and what goes on. The questions I am using are the following: What are the advantages and disadvantages of cloning? Can cloning help save endangered species? What are some of the ethical issues regarding human cloning? What are some recent developments in stem cell research?

When it comes to the topic of cloning, most of us will readily agree that human cloning has ethical issues and ramifications, but animal cloning could possibly help save endangered species and could bring back lost pets. Where this agreement usually ends, however, is on the question of how much can human cloning produce effective treatments for human health care and is animal cloning inhumane? Whereas some are convinced that cloning will help us further scientific advances, others maintain that any aspect of cloning can have social, ethical, and legal issues. My own view is if human cloning can present mutation and other side effects to cells then it should not be done until animal cloning has become more successful. On the other hand, animal cloning I think can help save endangered species and offer health care advantages for humans.

Source #1

A. Quinonez, Natasha. “The Pros and Cons of Cloning: Is It Worth the Risk?” Udemy Blog. Udemy, Inc., 26 May 2014. Web. 31 Oct. 2016.

B. Summary: In “The Pros and Cons of Cloning: Is It Worth the Risk?” by Natasha, Quinonez, she explains that cloning can easily be in our near future and debates the pros and cons about cloning. She discusses Reproductive Cloning, Organ Replacement, Genetic Research and some other pros. The cons she points out are Increased Malpractice, Lack of Diversity, Security, and a few others. She explains in the pro of Organ Replacement that, “because the organ is, in fact, your own organ, there would be less chance of rejection” (Quinonez). Basically, she is saying that organ replacement would be very good for humans because the organs would be compatible with your body. Quinonez describes the pros of Reproductive Cloning with, “Reproductive cloning has a number of pros. Much of it relates to helping human families gain children, but there is also a benefit for the animal world” (Quinonez). She goes on to explain that, “Parents that have lost a child can have that child returned to them with a clone” (Quinonez). And also, “Endangered animals can be cloned to save the species” (Quinonez). Essentially, reproductive cloning would be beneficial because of a few reasons. There are some cons that she discusses about Reproductive Cloning mainly that “Many believe that cloning is against God’s wishes because the clones would be created by man” (Quinonez). In other words, some people believe that it is against moral codes and should not be done. She ends her article by saying, “studies show that the clone would in fact not be completely identical to the original just as twins are not completely identical” (Quinonez). She adds, “Even if technology were created in which your memories and thoughts could be transmitted to the clone, your clone would still be a different person” (Quinonez).

C. Personal Response: This piece speaks to me because I have been debating the pros and cons of cloning the whole time I’ve been researching the subject and sometimes before I even started this paper. I liked this article because I believe that if cloning can have better advantages than disadvantages then we should continue the scientific research on it. When I read about the cons it does get me worried that some things can go wrong, and that stirs my stomach. Quinonez writes, “There is a possibility that the age of the donor could be imprinted on the growing embryo. This would cause premature aging issues and potentially lead to premature death” (Quinonez). In other words, death could happen a lot faster than a normal. I find that scary to think that a clone could possibly age faster than a non-clone and die from aging before someone who is a non-clone. Overall, I liked this article because it made me think a lot about the positive results of cloning, but as well as the negative results. If cloning will be a reality in our near future then I hope scientists can generate results that help humans survive.

D. Analytical Response: The purpose of this article is to explain the pros and cons of cloning, to help you decide what you believe and if it’s worth the risk involved. I believe that this article is made for a general audience like myself that isn’t studying in the biology field. It’s written with easy to comprehend language. I think Natasha Quinonez did a good job on this article and I would definitely share it with someone who was wondering about some advantages and disadvantages of cloning. Her word choice makes you think about what you believe. She says in the beginning, “is it really an option that should be considered as a way to extend human life?” (Quinonez). Essentially, she is asking us whether we believe cloning should be a way to prolong human life. I think she wrote it that way so you would question what you believe about the topic. Overall, it is a very good article that anyone could read to learn about some pros and cons of cloning.

E. Usefulness: I think this article would be useful if I were to write an essay on cloning. I could argue what I believe for each pro and con that she describes. This piece supports my thesis in the way that a lot of it is about human health. We can replace organs using cloning which I think would be a great advantage for humans. I learned things I didn’t know about cloning by reading this article and I could use those if I were to write an essay about this topic. Cloning can be a good thing, but also a bad thing. I learned that from this article. I believe that scientists can lessen the negative consequences and hopefully bring out great advancements for human health.

Source #2:

A. Vannewkirk, Gus. “Dear EarthTalk: Why are Many Environmentalists Against Artificial Cloning of Living Organisms? Isn’t it a Good Way to Save Endangered Species?” EarthTalk 2016. ProQuest. Web. 1 Nov. 2016.

B. Summary: In “Dear EarthTalk: Why are Many Environmentalists Against Artificial Cloning of Living Organisms? Isn’t it a Good Way to Save Endangered Species?” Vannewkirk reminds us that there are some complications that are involved in saving endangered species. He states, “Cloning of endangered species has a wildly low success rate; usually under one percent. Even successful clones are often not able to themselves reproduce and usually live shorter than average lives” (Vannewkirk). Essentially, he’s saying that even though it’s possible to clone an endangered species, there is a low rate of success and sometimes it’s not worth the money and trouble. He notes that even though cloning has been thought as “unnatural or inhumane” it was actually the first the first method of reproduction in nature. “Asexual reproduction, the oldest form of cloning, is used by aspens, stick insects, and Kentucky Bluegrass” (Vannewkirk). Vannewkirk explains that many species are on the brink of extinction and cloning seems like a good solution to saving the endangered species out there. Although there have been successful attempts at cloning animals, there have been more that have not been successful, he explains. He quotes, “The potential of cloning is intriguing, but it’s been very little tested in terms of its practical application,” by Oliver Ryder, an endangered species expert at the San Diego Zoo’s Institute for Conservation Research. Adding “The way to preserve endangered species is to preserve them in their habitat.” He tells us that “Frozen Zoos” in San Diego and Brazil hold genetic material of extinct and endangered animals if need be for the future if advancements increase on animal cloning. Vannewkirk also claims that Dolly the Sheep “was the result of the 434^th cloning attempt and only lived to just over half the live span of a sheep” (Vannewkirk).

C. Personal Response: I decided to choose this piece of writing because I liked the reply that the author gave. It changed my view on saving endangered species. I first thought that it was more of a possibility to do but reading the article changed my views. Something that grabbed my attention was when Vannewkirk states, “Cloning of endangered species has a wildly low success rate; usually under one percent” (Vannewkirk). I thought that cloning of endangered animals was more successful than that but I was wrong. I now know that it is very low and I now question, is it worth the effort and time to be trying to clone them? I have some mixed feeling about cloning of endangered animals now. I still believe that it will be the best way to help further the research and make cloning more successful in the future, but, not so much with the money and time associated with the process. I appreciated the way this piece was written because it’s in easy to understand terms and not scientific terms that many people won’t understand, unless they’re in the biological field.

D. Analytical Response: The purpose of this piece is to educate people about why environmentalists are against artificial cloning of living organisms. It explains why endangered species can be saved by cloning but why it’s not supported by majority of environmentalists. The vocabulary is very good and easy to understand. The author uses word choices that make me question my views on the cloning of endangered species and if it’s really a reality at this moment in time. The author is an editor from a website called EarthTalk, he has written a number of articles and I believe does research on them. I believe this because when I read these lines, “Artificial cloning began in 1928, when Hilde Mangold took a first step: injecting DNA into an egg. By 1952, the first animal was successfully cloned. It was a tadpole” (Vannewkirk). I knew he was doing his own research. Overall, this article was very general and helpful to my research about what I wanted to know.

E. Usefulness: This piece supports my thesis in the way that we can save endangered species with cloning. However, there are many complications involved that prevent scientists from making it the best possibility right now. The best way, right now, to save endangered species is to leave them alone in their habitats and stop poaching so they can live out their lives and reproduce. I think this article would be very useful if I were to form it into a research essay, because it tells me the realistic possibility of saving endangered species using cloning.

Source #3:

A. Dinç, Leyla. “Ethical Issues Regarding Human Cloning: A Nursing Perspective.” Nursing Ethics 10.3 (2003): 238-54. ProQuest. Web. 1 Nov. 2016.

B. Summary: In “Ethical Issues Regarding Human Cloning: A Nursing Perspective.” by Leyla Dinç, she discusses her points on human cloning. She explains how it introduces the potential for physical and psychosocial harm to human beings. Also the impact on familial relationships and society, as well as the potential harm to the gene pool. More importantly she discusses the nursing implications involved if human cloning were to be a reality. Dinç explains that The Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs of the American Medical Association says, “The risk of producing individuals with developmental anomalies is serious” (Dinç 240). She discusses with animal cloning, “large offspring syndrome has been a common problem occurring in several live-birth animals” (Dinç 240). Although, she explains “large offspring syndrome appears to be correlated with an incorrect imprint of the IGF2R (insulin-like growth factor II receptor) gene, but this gene is not imprinted in humans, suggesting that fetal overgrowth would not be predicted to occur if humans were cloned” (Dinç 241). Essentially, Dinç is saying that some believe these developmental anomalies might not happen to humans because the gene that causes it to happen in animals is not present in humans. Regarding psychosocial harm, Dinç says “Some believe that human cloning would be likely to have important effects on people’s sense of self or identity: on their intrinsic value as persons, or on their sense of freedom or autonomy in constructing their life” (Dinç 244). She explains that the knowledge of being cloned could be interpreted as “stigmatizing, evoking strong emotions such as denial, a sense of not being himself or herself, and anger towards the parents” adding, “Such emotions could lead to identity crises and low self-esteem” (Dinç 244-245). On the other hand, “it could be perceived as superiority and could lead to over-esteem” (Dinç 245). In other words, she is telling us that there could be lots of psychological harm possible if someone were to figure out they were a clone of someone else. Dinç tells us that the choice of whom to clone also raises concerns (Dinç 245). As well as “Discrimination and violation of human rights would be inevitable and widespread” (Dinç 246).

She further tells us that human cloning technology has the potential for using people’s own cells to produce stem cells that can become replacement tissue or organs. She explains, “The onset of diseases associated with aging could be prevented; aging could be delayed, and rejuvenation and/or an extended human life could become possible” (Dinç 246). Basically she is telling us that everlasting youth and life could be possible, if the technology were to advance. She discusses the potential harm to the gene pool and explains that diversity would decline and evolution would be weakened if human cloning were to become global. She argues that there are potential roles for nurses in the future if human cloning were to become a reality, stating “In my opinion, at this time, the most important role of nurses is as a protector and client advocate” (Dinç 249). She explains, in this role, “individual nurses can protect human and legal rights by contributing to the discussions, politics and policies surrounding human cloning” (Dinç 250). Dinç discusses a “caregiver role” and a “counseling role” (Dinç 250). She also explains that nurses could be “nurse educators” and “nurse researchers” (Dinç 251-252). In other words, Dinç believes that nurses would definitely have roles in human cloning and it would be a big part. She ends her piece by saying “nurses are an important part of health care teams and they will be faced with the health consequences of human cloning for individuals, for families and the whole of society, for whom they are responsible” (Dinç 252). Dinç’s point is that nurses will have a proper role with human cloning if it were to become a part of our future.

C. Personal Response: I saw this piece and thought it would be a great addition to my paper because it’s a different perspective that sounded really interesting. I appreciate that it was written with ease to understand language and not too many terms that most people wouldn’t understand. I thought most of this piece was very intriguing because I haven’t thought about a lot of the things she points out. If a human clone were to figure out it was a clone, it may affect their self-esteem and could lead to identity crises. That’s a scary thought to me. Dinç emphasizes that cloning has therapeutic purposes and can be an important part of the future. She states, “Cloning technology holds the potential for using people’s own cells to produce stem cells that can become replacement tissues or organs” (Dinç 246). I think that would be something that can definitely benefit everyone. Therapeutic things can be done with that sort of technology and change the whole world. I agree with what Dinç is telling us in her writing. Nurses can have a big role in human cloning in the future if there isn’t more technology that can prevent that from happening.

D. Analytical Response: Leyla Dinç believes that nurses will have implications in human cloning if it were to become widespread. Furthermore, Dinç claims that there are many ethical issues regarding human cloning. She explains these potential physical and psychosocial harms. Dinç states, “The potential for human cloning to cause physical harm contradicts the fundamental ethical principle of nonmaleficence” (Dinç 242). Basically, Dinç is saying human cloning goes against the words of non-harming or inflicting the least harm possible to reach a beneficial outcome. This piece was written with a lot of easy to understand terms. I believe that it was written more for a general sense of audience, so people can understand her perspective and what she believes in. Dinç’s credentials are that she is a nurse herself, and wrote this article because a lot of it involves a nurse’s perspective on a subject that is on a lot of minds. She works for Nursing Ethics, an international peer reviewed journal.

E. Usefulness: I think this journal piece would be very useful if I were to write this into a research essay, because it shows a lot of sources itself and facts about human cloning and the ethical issues. This piece supports my thesis in the sense that human cloning has a lot of ethical issues involved with it. However, there are a few ways human cloning can help out with human health, such as therapeutic purposes. Stem cells can be very useful for humans if the technology were to advance with cloning. This piece gives a different perspective on human cloning and the ethics.

Source #4

A. Coghlan, Andy. “Stem Cell Timeline.” Heart Views 16.2 (2015): 72-3 ProQuest. Web. 9 Nov. 2016.

B. Summary: In “Stem Cell Timeline.” by Andy Coghlan he goes through a timeline of the ups and downs of stem cell research. Coghlan reminds us that stem cells are the cellular putty from which all tissues of the body are made. He states, “Ever since human embryonic stem cells were first grown in the lab, researchers have dreamed of using them to repair damaged tissue or create new organs, but such medical uses have also attracted controversy” (Coghlan). Coghlan’s point is that stem cells are a big deal in the scientific world and to use them for such medical uses would be outstanding. Coghlan goes from 1981 with Martin Evans first identifying embryonic stem cells in mice to most recently in 2014 Masayo Takahashi who is selecting patients for what promises to be the world’s first trial of therapy based on induced pluripotent stem cells, to treat a form or age-related blindness (Coghlan). Basically, this means that the stem cell is able to take form of many different cell types which would help a lot in a therapy. In 1997 Dolly the sheep was created, the first artificial animal clone. Coghlan notes, “The process involves fusing a sheep egg with an udder cell and implanting the resulting hybrids into a surrogate mother sheep. Researchers speculate that similar hybrids made by fusing humans embryonic stem cells with adult cells from a particular person could be used to create genetically matched tissue and organs” (Coghlan). He is insisting that researchers say this process might be capable of producing identical tissue and/or organs of humans if the same process was involved. In 2007 Coghlan notes, “Evans shares the Nobel prize for medicine with Mario Capecchi and Oliver Smithies for work on genetics and embryonic stem cells” (Coghlan). He tells us that in 2008 President Obama lifted restrictions made in 2001 on federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research. Another Nobel prize was won in 2012 Yamanaka for creating induced pluripotent stem cells, which he shared with John Gurdon (Coghlan).

C. Personal Response: I found this piece very interesting because it shows us the rollercoaster of stem cell research. Some of the dates are great findings like the creation of induced pluripotent stem cells, which are able to take form of many cell types. Something that is great for therapeutic purposes. Other dates like in 2005, “Woo Suk Hwang of Seoul National University in South Korea reports that his team has used therapeutic cloning – a technique inspired by the one used to create Dolly – to create human embryonic stem cells genetically matched to specific people. Later that year, his claims turn out to be false” (Coghlan). That isn’t something that would be good to find out I presume. I gained some knowledge of what advancements scientists have found over the course of many years. I have learned that stem cell research can be a big thing, and potentially live changing to some people. Coghlan notes in 2010, “A person with spinal injury becomes the first to receive a medical treatment derived from human embryonic stem cells” (Coghlan).

D. Analytical Response: Coghlan spreads out a timeline to show the rollercoaster of how it has progressed and what has happened over the course of years. This piece is written as a list of dates and what has happened during those years for stem cell research. Coghlan claims that in 2006 cells were reprogrammed. He states, “Shinya Yamanaka of Kyoto University in Japan reveals a way of making embryonic-like cells from adult cells – avoiding the need to destroy an embryo. His team reprograms ordinary adult cells by inserting four key genes – forming induced pluripotent stem cells” (Coghlan). Basically, these induced pluripotent stem cells can take form of many cell types and help out with therapeutic cloning. Andy Coghlan is an editor for a website named New Scientist.

E. Usefulness: I believe this timeline would be useful to me writing a research essay on cloning because I could look up the dates, research them myself extensively and get some more information. This piece supports my thesis because there are health advances for humans and I wanted to show that some of them are being worked on, and finding dates of advancements made by scientists I believe is useful for that task. Stem cells are advancing so often with new technology emerging and I believe that is something worth sharing.

Work Cited

Coghlan, Andy. “Stem Cell Timeline.” Heart Views 16.2 (2015): 72-3 ProQuest. Web. 9 Nov. 2016.

Dinç, Leyla. “Ethical Issues Regarding Human Cloning: A Nursing Perspective.” Nursing Ethics 10.3 (2003): 238-54. ProQuest. Web. 1 Nov. 2016.

Quinonez, Natasha. “The Pros and Cons of Cloning: Is It Worth the Risk?” Udemy Blog. Udemy, Inc., 26 May 2014. Web. 31 Oct. 2016.

Vannewkirk, Gus. “Dear EarthTalk: Why are Many Environmentalists Against Artificial Cloning of Living Organisms? Isn’t it a Good Way to Save Endangered Species?” EarthTalk 2016. ProQuest. Web. 1 Nov. 2016.