為了方便大家的學(xué)習(xí)，順利通過雅思考試，為大家精心整理了雅思寫作高分范文賞析：Cloning，供大家參考！將為大家發(fā)布最新、最專業(yè)的雅思考試機(jī)經(jīng)及解析，歡迎參考閱讀。
Cloning
Shortly after the announcement that British scientists had successfully
cloned a sheep, Dolly, cloning humans has recently become a possibility that
seems much more feasible in today's society. The word clone has been applied to
cells as well as to organisms, so that a group of cells stemming from a single
cell is also called a clone. Usually the members of a clone are identical in
their inherited characteristics that is, in their genes except for any
differences caused by mutation. Identical twins, for example, who originate by
the division of a single fertilized egg, are members of a clone; whereas
nonidentical twins, who derive from two separate fertilized eggs, are not
clones. (Microsoft?Encarta?97 Encyclopedia). There are two known ways that we
can clone humans. The first way involves splitting an embryo into several halves
and creating many new individuals from that embryo. The second method of cloning
a human involves taking cells from an already existing human being and cloning
them, in turn creating other individuals that are identical to that particular
person. With these two methods at our desposal, we must ask ourselves two very
important questions: Should we do this, and Can we? There is no doubt that many
problems involving the technological and ethical sides of this issue will arise
and will be virtually impossible to avoid, but the overall idea of cloning
humans is one that we should accept as a possible reality for the future.
Cloning humans is an idea that has always been thought of as something that
could be found in science fiction novels, but never as a concept that society
could actually experience. Today's technological speed has brought us to the
piont to where almost anything is possible. Sarah B. Tegen, '97 MIT Biology
Undergraduate President states, I think the cloning of an entire mammal has
shown me exactly how fast biology is moving ahead, I had no idea we were so
close to this kind of accomplishment. Based on the current science , though,
most of these dreams and fears are premature, say some MIT biologists. Many
biologist claim that true human cloning is something still far in the future.
This raises ethical questions now as towhether or not human cloning should even
be attempted.
There are many problems with cloning humans. One method of human cloning is
splitting embryos. The main issue as to whether or not human cloning is possible
through the splitting of embryos began in 1993 when experimentation was done at
George Washington University Medical Center in Washington D.C. There Dr. Jerry
Hall experimented with the possibility of human cloning and began this moral and
ethical debate. There it was concluded that cloning is not something that can be
done as of now, but it is quite a possibility for the future. These scientists
experimented eagerly in aims of learning how to clone humans. Ruth Macklin of
U.S. News & World Report writes, Hall and other scientists split single
humans embryos into identical copies, a technology that opens a Pandora's box of
ethical questions and has sparked a storm of controversy around the world
They attempted to create seventeen human embryos in a laboratory dish and
when it had grown enough, separated them into forty-eight individual cells. Two
of the separated cells survived for a few days in the lab developed into new
human embryos smaller than the head of a pin and consisting of thirty-two cells
each.
Although we cannot clone a human yet, this experiment occurred almost two
years ago and triggered almost an ethical emergency. Evidence from these
experiments received strange reactions from the public. Ruth Macklin states,
Cloning is a radical challenge to the most fundamental laws of biology, so it's
not unreasonable to be concerned that it might threaten human society and
dignity. Yet much of the ethical opposition seems also to grow out of an
unthinking disgust--a sort of yuk factor. And that makes it hard for even
trained scientists and ethicists to see the matter clearly. While human cloning
might not offer great benefits to humanity, no one has yet made a persuasive
case that it would do any real harm, either.
Theologians contend that to clone a human would violate human dignity. That
would surely be true if a cloned individual were treated as a lesser being, with
fewer rights or lower stature. But why suppose that cloned persons wouldn't
share the same rights and dignity as the rest of us? If and when cloning comes
about, will people be willing to pay anything for a clone of themselves? It is
such a costly form of technology. As we see with so many other aspects of
today's socity, people will do all kinds of things for money. (Will human
cloning make a type of black market for embryos could easily someday develop?)
Parents already spend a great deal of money on in vitro fertilization, and who
knows how much they would be willing to pay for cloning their children? The
question as to what cloning would do to society from both the moral and economic
standpoints comes to the conclusion that for the most part cloning is too
expensive and too dangerous. In the religous circles the question of human
cloning has stirred debate. Rev. Robert A. Martin states: It appears that from
the beginning God reserved for Himself the right to create living souls. I
understand that the philosophy of modern psychiatry is to teach that human
beings are soulless, therefore we are just flesh and blood which can only
respond to the environment with no ability to make conscious decisions for
itself. In other words people are no differnet than animals to be used and
manipulaated. Thus, there is, from the beginnging, a fundamental difference
between what the Bible teaches and what psychiatry teaches. This being the case,
it is little wonder then, that some people assume the prerogative of playing the
role of god.
Embryonic cloning could be a valuable tool for the studying of human
development, genetically modifying embryos, and investigating new transplant
technologies. Using cloning to produce offspring for the sake of their organs is
an issue that we must also face and question whether or not it is morally right.
No one will say that it is okay to kill a human being for the sake of their
organs. But will many have no objection to cloning thousands of individuals for
the sake of organ transplants? Technology seems to take away many of the morals
that we have worked so hard to install in society. Most people only seem to want
to cater to their own needs and do not bother to consider the consequences that
society and the clone may have to face. With the issue of parents' involvement
in cloning, Ruth Macklin, writes, Perhaps a grieving couple whose child is
dying. This might seem psychologically twisted. But a cloned child born to such
dubious parents stands no greater or lesser chance of being loved, or rejected,
or warped than a child normally conceived. Infertile couples are also likely to
seek out cloning. That such couples have other options (in vitro fertilization
or adoption) is not an argument for denying them the right to clone. Or consider
an example raised by Judge Richard Posner: a couple in which the husband has
some tragic genetic defect. Currently, if this couple wants a genetically
related child, they have four not altogether pleasant options. They can
reproduce naturally and risk passing on the disease to the child. They can go to
a sperm bank and take a chance on unknown genes. They can try in vitro
fertilization and dispose of any afflicted embryo--though that might be
objectionable, too. Or they can get a male relative of the father to donate
sperm, if such a relative exists. This is one case where even people unnerved by
cloning might see it as not the worst option.
Cloning
Shortly after the announcement that British scientists had successfully
cloned a sheep, Dolly, cloning humans has recently become a possibility that
seems much more feasible in today's society. The word clone has been applied to
cells as well as to organisms, so that a group of cells stemming from a single
cell is also called a clone. Usually the members of a clone are identical in
their inherited characteristics that is, in their genes except for any
differences caused by mutation. Identical twins, for example, who originate by
the division of a single fertilized egg, are members of a clone; whereas
nonidentical twins, who derive from two separate fertilized eggs, are not
clones. (Microsoft?Encarta?97 Encyclopedia). There are two known ways that we
can clone humans. The first way involves splitting an embryo into several halves
and creating many new individuals from that embryo. The second method of cloning
a human involves taking cells from an already existing human being and cloning
them, in turn creating other individuals that are identical to that particular
person. With these two methods at our desposal, we must ask ourselves two very
important questions: Should we do this, and Can we? There is no doubt that many
problems involving the technological and ethical sides of this issue will arise
and will be virtually impossible to avoid, but the overall idea of cloning
humans is one that we should accept as a possible reality for the future.
Cloning humans is an idea that has always been thought of as something that
could be found in science fiction novels, but never as a concept that society
could actually experience. Today's technological speed has brought us to the
piont to where almost anything is possible. Sarah B. Tegen, '97 MIT Biology
Undergraduate President states, I think the cloning of an entire mammal has
shown me exactly how fast biology is moving ahead, I had no idea we were so
close to this kind of accomplishment. Based on the current science , though,
most of these dreams and fears are premature, say some MIT biologists. Many
biologist claim that true human cloning is something still far in the future.
This raises ethical questions now as towhether or not human cloning should even
be attempted.
There are many problems with cloning humans. One method of human cloning is
splitting embryos. The main issue as to whether or not human cloning is possible
through the splitting of embryos began in 1993 when experimentation was done at
George Washington University Medical Center in Washington D.C. There Dr. Jerry
Hall experimented with the possibility of human cloning and began this moral and
ethical debate. There it was concluded that cloning is not something that can be
done as of now, but it is quite a possibility for the future. These scientists
experimented eagerly in aims of learning how to clone humans. Ruth Macklin of
U.S. News & World Report writes, Hall and other scientists split single
humans embryos into identical copies, a technology that opens a Pandora's box of
ethical questions and has sparked a storm of controversy around the world
They attempted to create seventeen human embryos in a laboratory dish and
when it had grown enough, separated them into forty-eight individual cells. Two
of the separated cells survived for a few days in the lab developed into new
human embryos smaller than the head of a pin and consisting of thirty-two cells
each.
Although we cannot clone a human yet, this experiment occurred almost two
years ago and triggered almost an ethical emergency. Evidence from these
experiments received strange reactions from the public. Ruth Macklin states,
Cloning is a radical challenge to the most fundamental laws of biology, so it's
not unreasonable to be concerned that it might threaten human society and
dignity. Yet much of the ethical opposition seems also to grow out of an
unthinking disgust--a sort of yuk factor. And that makes it hard for even
trained scientists and ethicists to see the matter clearly. While human cloning
might not offer great benefits to humanity, no one has yet made a persuasive
case that it would do any real harm, either.
Theologians contend that to clone a human would violate human dignity. That
would surely be true if a cloned individual were treated as a lesser being, with
fewer rights or lower stature. But why suppose that cloned persons wouldn't
share the same rights and dignity as the rest of us? If and when cloning comes
about, will people be willing to pay anything for a clone of themselves? It is
such a costly form of technology. As we see with so many other aspects of
today's socity, people will do all kinds of things for money. (Will human
cloning make a type of black market for embryos could easily someday develop?)
Parents already spend a great deal of money on in vitro fertilization, and who
knows how much they would be willing to pay for cloning their children? The
question as to what cloning would do to society from both the moral and economic
standpoints comes to the conclusion that for the most part cloning is too
expensive and too dangerous. In the religous circles the question of human
cloning has stirred debate. Rev. Robert A. Martin states: It appears that from
the beginning God reserved for Himself the right to create living souls. I
understand that the philosophy of modern psychiatry is to teach that human
beings are soulless, therefore we are just flesh and blood which can only
respond to the environment with no ability to make conscious decisions for
itself. In other words people are no differnet than animals to be used and
manipulaated. Thus, there is, from the beginnging, a fundamental difference
between what the Bible teaches and what psychiatry teaches. This being the case,
it is little wonder then, that some people assume the prerogative of playing the
role of god.
Embryonic cloning could be a valuable tool for the studying of human
development, genetically modifying embryos, and investigating new transplant
technologies. Using cloning to produce offspring for the sake of their organs is
an issue that we must also face and question whether or not it is morally right.
No one will say that it is okay to kill a human being for the sake of their
organs. But will many have no objection to cloning thousands of individuals for
the sake of organ transplants? Technology seems to take away many of the morals
that we have worked so hard to install in society. Most people only seem to want
to cater to their own needs and do not bother to consider the consequences that
society and the clone may have to face. With the issue of parents' involvement
in cloning, Ruth Macklin, writes, Perhaps a grieving couple whose child is
dying. This might seem psychologically twisted. But a cloned child born to such
dubious parents stands no greater or lesser chance of being loved, or rejected,
or warped than a child normally conceived. Infertile couples are also likely to
seek out cloning. That such couples have other options (in vitro fertilization
or adoption) is not an argument for denying them the right to clone. Or consider
an example raised by Judge Richard Posner: a couple in which the husband has
some tragic genetic defect. Currently, if this couple wants a genetically
related child, they have four not altogether pleasant options. They can
reproduce naturally and risk passing on the disease to the child. They can go to
a sperm bank and take a chance on unknown genes. They can try in vitro
fertilization and dispose of any afflicted embryo--though that might be
objectionable, too. Or they can get a male relative of the father to donate
sperm, if such a relative exists. This is one case where even people unnerved by
cloning might see it as not the worst option.