Clones- some of us have heard the word, but don’t know what it means or what clones are. The definition of clone is an organism produced from the genetic makeup of another. What most people don’t realize is that when you see identical twins, you’re actually looking at clones. Cloning has many applications, from reproducing an extinct animal to greatly helping us understand diseases more. For say, if you had a heart condition, but couldn’t get a new heart in time, stem cell therapy could repair your heart. With all of the hype around this topic, whether relating to the loss of individuality, or whether or not clones will have rights. In a recent survey, 39% of people believe that cloning is immoral or against their personal beliefs. This raises …show more content…
Furthermore, there are many people that believe that humans can be owned, take human trafficking for example. According to a closed survey, the majority of people believe that a company should not be allowed to own a clone that they produced. Moreover, the majority also voted that clones should also have the same rights off the bat. This raises many concerns, could a clone be raised for a specific reason- such as terrorism? According to Clonaid- a religious group- there are already human clones (Clonaid P.1). This company does not release the identities of any of it’s clientele, and has never fully physically proven the existence of their clone. Although, the question is still up for debate. Companies are patenting genetic information all of the time, whether that be for a genetically modified food source or for someone’s whole genome, the reasoning stays the same. If you patent something, you say that it’s your idea- thereby stating that you own it. A company tried to patent a gene in order to test for breast cancer and it didn’t go so well for them. “The case was first heard in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and in March 2010, District Judge Robert Sweet ruled in favor of the plaintiffs.”(NGHRI Par.14) What we can take away from this ruling, is that a company- as of now- cannot patent a