Most people think they know what cloning is. They would define it,
probably, as taking a piece of one plant or animal and using it to make
another just like it. In fact, Brannigan points out that the term "clone"
was very likely first used in botany to describe the process of budding.
(12) He also notes that Webster's digital dictionary explains that the
word is from the Greek kion, which means "twig."
Current uses of the term include scientifically oriented ones;
scientists use the term to describe asexual reproduction of an identical
copy of an organism, and is something that happens naturally in bacteria,
algae, plants and yeast. In addition, it is the method by which the human
body grows and repairs itself, although higher life forms gave it up as a
reproductive method 500 million years ago, leaving it to only those
primitive organism mentioned. (Brannigan, 12)
Considering that "cloning" is a natural activity taking place in our
bodies every dayâ€"when we get a cut, grow some hair and so onâ€"and has been a
factor of reproduction for a minimum of 501 million years, why is there a
debate at all' If it is a natural process, why shouldn't humans have the
Within the question lies part of the impetus for the debate. Cloning
as debated by clergy, philosophers, and politicians is not natural but
rather the result of interference and manipulation by scientists. To
scientists, who see it as simply part of their job, there is no debate
about doing it, although there is some about how far it should go.
The following investigation will set forth some of the main arguments
of the major professional stakeholders, that is, scientists, clergy,
philosophers and politicians (who may or may not represent popular
opinion). But first, there are some scientific realities, beyond the
simple definition of the word, that bear examina...