Dr. Michio Kaku is an American theoretical physicist and futurist and is one of the greatest minds to live in the 20th and the 21st centuries, his works criticizing the anthropogenic activities that caused environmental destruction made him one of the most prominent and well-known people to stand for environmental protection. In his book entitled “Visions: How Science Will Revolutionize the 21st Century (1997)”, he illustrated that there are three great themes in science in the 20th century – the atom, the computer, and the gene. The biomolecular revolution has undeniably transformed the way we will live today, as it did with the quantum and computer revolution, and its beginning with Dolly the sheep – the first whole-organism cloning, took the world by surprise and by storm, sparking debate about the proper, responsible, and ethical implications on the usage of biotechnology and the pros and cons associated with such (Polkinghorne, 2000; Messerly, 2014).
With the ability of humans to be able to intervene in the structure of the genome, what might be likened to the “fabric of life”, multiple ethical questions arise which have been debated for the majority of the past few decades (Cottrell, Jensen, & Peck, 2014). Three contemporary features served as the tenets for concerns regarding the use of such. The first is the so-called “respect of life”, implying that interfering with the very biochemical compound which makes every one of us unique and fundamentally important to nature is contradictory to the integrity of nature. The second is the cautious and anxious approach wherein the presence and potential of such would drive research and development ahead of proper ethical considerations, disregarding the plausible ethical concerns associated with such. Lastly, the use of such technology which requires resources and financial assets would mean that those who can partake in the research of such means would have the power to monopolize or at the very least use their leverage in such technology for the continued unethical and discriminatory use of nature for the fulfillment of their self-interested passions/desires (Polkinghorne, 2000).
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
Throughout human history, multiple scientific revolutions were shaped by decades and centuries of research and development wherein the continuous expansion and rapid development of human civilization have dramatically improved our lives, albeit at the cost of the rapid deterioration/depletion of natural resources and the accompanied and subsequent decline of plant and animal species. With various conservation groups all around the world aiming to help protect and reverse the detrimental actions of man, the big question remains, would cloning be the solution to species endangerment and extinction? (Blomquist, 1998; Jabr, 2013)
The current rate of mammalian extinction has been growing at an exponential rate over the last couple of years, with such a rapid decline in the population of not only mammals but also reptiles, birds, amphibians, etc., experts have been quick to assert that at this current rate, we could experience the Holocene extinction within our lifetime, and some even say that we are currently in the middle of it. This has prompted much discussion on the usage of cloning as the tool to alleviate not only mammalian extinction but also the extinction of the ecosystem as a whole, be it plant or animal (Ehrenfeld, 2006; Pina-Aguilar et al., 2009; Ryder & Benirschke, 1997; Lee, 2001; Ryder, 2002). Cloning can have long-lasting and far-reaching effects if such is applied to endangered species, and could change the course of conservation, for better or worse (Cottrell, Jensen, & Peck, 2014).
Almost any optimistic and technocentric person one may meet on the street, more often than not, he/she may think that science and technology would one day hold the key to saving those plants or animals in need and bring back those that have vanished from nature. With today’s current technology though, the prospect of de-extinction and the revival of endangered species is few and far between, as the time and resources needed to resurrect and revitalize their species is far more expensive and too much of a risk than to spend the assets on saving existing plants and animals whose natural habitats are fast disappearing (Lee, 2001). Essentially, it is not pragmatic to clone all endangered species for the sake of reviving their population if the resources needed are just not there and if the world or habitat they used to live in is already a thing of the distant past, and they may never recover without humanity shifting away from man’s self-interested passions (Jabr, 2003).
Cloning often introduces various harms to society, biology, and possibly to the environment. Utilitarian considerations on cloning help us understand the viability of such technology in today’s world wherein the world’s limited supply of natural resources, as well as the financial capacity of various research groups to undertake such marvel in genetics and engineering, may undermine the very framework such work stands on (Moss & Scheer, 2016). One thing to take note of, and it may not come as a surprise to anybody, is that cloning is taxing to the environment, especially given the tedious and intensive work with endangered species, the cost (i.e. economic and environmental costs) of individual endangered species is expensive given that they are under legal protection (Jabr, 2013). While some may say cloning is paramount to bringing back the population of endangered species, it would be counter-productive to use the very same species as donors/surrogates especially as it often takes hundreds of trials to make a successful clone. This poses a major risk to the surrogate mother/s, with the death of such an unacceptable biological and conservation cost (Ehrenfeld, 2006; Poland & Bishop, 2002).
Research involving cloning always comes at a high price, drilling a major hole in the pockets of those who dare to take the leap of faith. Such costs include vast resource allocation and reallocation wherein the costs of cloning can siphon out funds that would otherwise have helped various habitat preservation and conservation efforts (Cottrell, Jensen, & Peck, 2014). The Cheetah Conservation Fund, one of the many organizations with a primary goal in the preservation of cheetah special operates on an annual budget of $1.8 million, and to reallocate most, if not all of its budget to cloning would seriously hamper its ability to attain its goal in preservation. Thus, more often than not, most organizations like the Cheetah Conservation Fund would rather prefer assisted reproduction and other efforts (e.g. habitat restoration and protection) as a more effective conservation strategy than cloning (Pina-Aguilar et al., 2009; Ryder & Benirschke, 1997). Therefore, investing in cloning is greatly frowned upon by conservationists and nature advocates alike, and it’s not wrong to assume that the funds could have otherwise gone to the conservation of wildlife habitats worldwide (Lee, 2001).
Moreover, the deontological implications of cloning question whether or not humans must revive or bring back those plants and animals whose species have suffered at the hands of man. Such thinking has pushed researchers to often forget that focusing on a limited number of species, especially those that are valuable in the field of research, with the hopes of rebounding its population with a technology that is not yet fully realized, typically blurs the very definition of what it means for humanity to have a sense of duty to our planet and all of its inhabitants (Pina-Aguilar et al., 2009).
Cloning is not a viable conservation strategy as the biggest threats to biodiversity loss today cannot be solved by such, but rather it is a distraction that deters the public mindset from the main job of the preservation and conservation of nature. Essentially, given a utilitarian and deontological viewpoint of cloning endangered species, the inherent costs of such and the prevailing debates regarding the job of humanity as saviors of natural wildlife come into play and question cloning as the future of environmental conservation. (Cottrell, Jensen, & Peck, 2014).
Given that the low conception rates and high costs of cloning are some of the major factors that deter researchers, and pragmatical thinking, this cannot be taken as an excuse to not use the technology. At the current rate of how technology is progressing, it is pragmatic, but to do so is disingenuous and only serves to hamper technological progress and advancement. Practical considerations also come into play when using cloning technology in wildlife conservation, as the basic physiological knowledge of certain endangered species that humans aim to clone does not exist. With such, the inability of researchers to effectively minimize the risks of such given the lack of knowledge, animal welfare is then sacrificed for the sake of gathering experimental data which may be invalid.
Another major significant drawback is the viability and survivability of the offspring that would be produced are still uncertain. In its current state, it’s almost guaranteed that the resultant offspring would suffer from some kind/degree of abnormality. And this is only taken into account if given sufficient resources and funds which yielded a successful offspring from hundreds of trials. The abnormalities present may range from physiological to mental impediments, and such has been attributed to inefficient programming and imprinting of nuclear DNA as a result of an experimental and non-final procedure and lack or minimal knowledge about the organisms (Young & Fairburn, 2000; Humpherys et al., 2001; Chung et al., 2003). The successful cloning of endangered organisms in the hopes of reviving their populations without any major drawbacks in the financial, environmental, and conservational aspects would be a major feat in the application of such technology, but essentially, the theoretical benefits outweigh the cons are yet to be seen in the reel world (Holt, Pickard, & Prather, 2004).
In certain cases, and with certain species, the use of cloning is a useful tool for the preservation of the genetic material of an endangered species on the verge of extinction or for species whose genetic diversity is limited or dwindling. The usage of cloning in such circumstances is only beneficial once the technology is there wherein the pros outweigh the cons and that the world, we have in the future would still viably support such cloned species who have once got used to a world that is long gone. But in reality, no one knows whether cloning is the solution to curbing the 6th mass extinction that would take place or is currently taking place (Jabr, 2013).
The bottom line is that it all comes down to the costs of cloning, the sacrifices it takes, the funds it will need, and the resources it will drain, along with the vital question of whether a man should be the one responsible for solving its actions by reversing the process which would lead to natural disruptions (i.e. a solution in search of a problem) or continue solving the root problems and/or causes of species endangerment via conservation and preservation. The bottom line here is that for the cloning of endangered plants and animals to at least retain its ethical value and be environmentally, financially, and economically viable, it must not diverge from the overall goals of conservation and the sacrifices needed to get there must be outweighed with the benefits that nature would reap later (Cottrell, Jensen, & Peck, 2014). Lastly, the ends of cloning do not yet justify the means, and such is a haphazard and unstable technology that in its current state, only serves as a proof-of-concept product for a world that is yet to be seen, a remarkable first-generation technology that would eventually become better, but given everything we have today, it’s still just a solution in search of a problem.
Stuck on your essay?
