Cloning Moral Implications (S/F)

Since the advent of cloning in the world of biology, scientists and bioengineering companies have garnered a considerable amount of criticism, due to the highly controversial nature of genetic manipulation and creating artificial lifeforms. While the process of cloning lifeforms could benefit humankind tremendously in the way of medicine and our understanding of biology, there are many reasons why skeptics are so adamantly against it.  Human cloning in particular has been the subject of intense debate in recent times; some of the ethical arguments that have been raised over the years include so-called ‘playing God’ i.e. creating life not out of natural love as per “God’s plan” or human evolution but of scientific processes. Many other issues have been brought forward by skeptics, such as whether it is morally acceptable to discard failed embryos, if a ‘copy’ of a human would have the same rights and entitlements in society as the ‘original’ person and if duplicating life would interfere with the natural course of life on Earth.

Upon seeing InGen’s technological triumph in the form of successfully recreating various extinct dinosaurs, Dr. Ian Malcolm, a firm believer of chaos theory, was adamant that the park was doomed to fail due to life “finding a way.” In his opinion, the scientists of Jurassic Park did not understand the inherent dangers of manipulating nature by cloning animals that had been ‘selected’ for extinction by nature, (failing to stop and think if they ‘should’ rather than simply if they ‘could, and assuming ‘new’ forms of life could be controlled, going so far as comparing what Dr. John Hammond called “discovery” to the “rape of the natural world.”