Introduction
According to Morrison and Furlong (2014, pp.112), human cloning is one among the most controversial topics in the circles of contemporary reproductive sciences. The concept of cloning has sparked a fierce ideological war between the reproductive and the social sciences because it raises questions of ethics. It makes sense, then that people take keen interest in questioning the ethics on cloning research. Whether or not science is obliged to provide the public with the research findings on matters surrounding cloning has been a matter of debate within circles of social science and contemporary politics. The ethical standpoint of publicizing research on cloning has been challenged by many, with others supporting the idea. Those that think it is unethical to publicize such research cite religious and social reasons. This paper seeks to explain why and how science has the ethical obligation to present to the public both the burdens and benefits of scientific research.
The Argument for the Publication of the Research on the Pros and Cons of Cloning
Those opposed to the idea that science is ethically obliged to present the public with research on the advantages and disadvantages of cloning base their argument on religion, arguing that publication of such research will be an indirect way of preaching against the sanctity of life. In my opinion however, such research should be presented to the public because the principles and guidelines of scientific research state clearly that scientists should carry out research with the interest of the public at heart. It will be a violation of principle if the scientists conceal research on the pros and cons of cloning. According to MacKinnon (2000, pp.94), the public is the biggest stakeholder of any form of research because it provides both the subjects and the consumers of the information.
Those opposed to the fact that science should present the public with the cloning research argue that such presentation would be dangerous as the public could potentially misinterpret the results (United States, 2006, pp. 46). However, I believe that presenting the research to the public will be the most potent way of providing the public with a framework on which they can base their decision making. Morrison and Monagle (2009, pp.67) argue that presenting scientific facts to the public is the best way of ensuring they make informed decisions with regard to their reproductive health. Additionally, the definition of ethics states that it is ethical, that which serves the majority. In this case, the public is the majority among all stakeholders. Ethically, failing to present such research may result in poor decisions being made by the public resulting in potential loss of life.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is clear that, from the foregoing, science has an ethical obligation to present research on the pros and cons of cloning to the public. Such presentation, as explained above is in line with the principles and guidelines that define scientific research. Secondly, presenting the public with such research will enable the members of the public make informed decisions based on factual information. Failure to present such information amounts to deception, which may be interpreted as an abuse to humanity because, as a matter of fact, it is from the public that the scientists get the subjects and the consumers of the research. Ultimately, scientific research on the benefits and burdens of cloning should be presented to the public because such presentation has more pros than cons.
References
MacKinnon, B. (2000). Human cloning: Science, ethics, and public policy. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Morrison, E. & Furlong, B. (2014). Health care ethics: Critical issues for the 21st century. Burlington, MA. Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Morrison, E. E., & Monagle, J. F. (2009). Health care ethics: Critical issues for the 21st century. Sudbury, Mass: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.
United States. (2006). Science and ethics of human cloning: Hearing before the Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, United States Senate, One Hundred Eighth Congress, first session, January 29, 2003. Washington: U.S. G.P.O.
