Training and Development Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

Training and Development - Essay Example Who receives the training in the organization and what are the topics? First, before conducting the training, managers are briefed on the key topics that will be covered as well as the courses to be discussed in length. Additionally, after briefings of the management, the employees are trained on the topics such as quality management, business continuity, information security and environmental management among others. What are the typical steps in the training process in your organization?The steps that I would consider when training is taking place are needs analysis. This is where the managers consider the audience program that is suited for them, their level of education among others. The next step I would incorporate is an instructional design where materials for learning are provided like video scripts, leaders guide among others. The next step that I will engage is validation where the introduction is done before a representative audience. The fourth step is implementation, whe re knowledge and skills learned, are implemented. Lastly is evaluation and follow up to make sure that the skills learned are used correctly.How are your training efforts evaluated for effectiveness and efficiency?Training efforts are evaluated for effectiveness and efficiency by the results were in the company improvement in job performance is acquired (John, 2008). The behavior of the learner’s performance following completion of the training will also indicate effectiveness and efficiency in the organization.

History of Asia since 1600 Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

History of Asia since 1600 - Essay Example Although, the exaggerated interest in nationalism in 30’s led to the rise of fascist and Nazi ideas, it also provoked the anti colonial liberation movements in Asia (Smith 95). The current essay will examine the peculiarities and the differences of the nationalistic movements in Eastern, Southern, and South-Eastern Asia at the end of the 19th and the beginning of 20th century. At the beginning of the 20th century, the countries of the South and Eastern Asia were completely dependent on England, France, and the Netherlands as their mother countries. For maintaining these areas, there were established specific methods of governing, from protectorate to politically powerless territories. The World War I gave a push to the creation of national economies, and, consequently, to the formation of the national capital and the working class. Transformation of the existing structures of the society caused the emergence of new conflicts between the labor and the capital, between the national capital and the capital of metropolis, and the decline of traditional elites. On the new basis, the national liberation movement began to develop. The newly formed national political parties sought to overcome the backwardness with the help of gaining national independence and modernization. In India, it was Indian peasantry that formed a major force in the national liberation movement in the interwar period. To involve a broad amount of population into this movement, it was needed to take into account socio-psychological characteristics of the Indian peasantry and urban workers, yesterday’s peasants. Prominent role in the organization of mass non-violent campaign of the resistance to the colonial regime in the 20 - 40’s of the 20th century belonged to Mahatma Gandhi. He was the one to shape India national ideology. Thanks to Gandhi, the idea of the absolute independence of India was put forward. In this respect, Indian

Animals For Testing And Research Studies

Animals For Testing And Research Studies This report is based on the Literature Review about ethical dilemma that arises over the controversy of using Animals for Testing and Research Studies. We have tried to explain in brief about Animal Testing and discussed broadly with the Ethical Theories that support and argue about the Use of Animals. We have also tried to relate all the ethical dilemma with respect to PG, who over the past decade has been constantly facing the allegations over the use of Animal Testing to ensure that their consumers get Safe Products. We have tried to come to a conclusion on how Animal Testing can be reduced, if not completely eradicated. At the same time we have voiced our opinions on the use of various alternatives to Animal Testing. Overview of Animal Testing The Use of Animals for test observations and Experimentations for the greater understanding of reactions from a particular substance or raw material that goes into some goods or medicines that we consumers consume can be termed as Animal Testing. Or you can say the use of non-human animals experimentations to prevent pain and sufferings to human beings A number of companies that produced goods for personal and hygiene care have emerged from the mid to late nineteenth century and this resulted in the number of animal tests and experiments to grow exponentially. The main reasons for those tests were medical research, to cure illness and test chemical compounds used to develop new products. Those tests were conducted in medical schools, pharmaceutical companies, and even farms. The vast amounts of animals that are being tested on are mice, monkeys, cats, dogs and guinea pigs. However, certain types of animals are used for different types of research for instance mice for cancer research, dogs for transplant surgery and cats for psychological experiments. Moreover, most of those animals that are being tested on are purposely-bred and supplied by the specialists companies, others usually come from the pound or are just caught in the wild. Over 100 million animals in North America alone will be killed in animal tests this year. Animal testing has been going on for years, a lot of companies test their products on animals, some of these tests consist of restraining animals and dropping chemicals into their eyes, the scientists also forcefully pump the chemicals into the animals stomach though a tube to see how it reacts to the chemical. These experiments are sometimes carried without anesthesia which makes it extremely painful for the animal. After observing the reactions for a number of days the animal is either destroyed or re-used in other experiments, most experiments consist of burning, stabbing and drugging animals. The thing is that animals react to drugs differently than we do so the results cant accurately be applied to humans so why do scientists do it? Since we cannot legally conduct tests on ourselves as humans, we look at the creatures that are right below us, animals. However, some of us dont seem to notice animals have feelings and can experience pain just as we would. As Jeremy Bentham would ask, The question is not, Can they reason? Nor, Can they talk? But can they suffer? Testing Animal Testing and Ethical Dilemma Introduction The rise in the consumer dominance has led the organizations to adopt the use of various artificially derived chemicals for use in production of Personal and Hygiene Goods. At the same time, medical advances and pharmaceutical companies acknowledge the use of animals for research studies and experimentation. This has raised various doubts about our ethics. Testing on Animals for chemical substance reactions to ensure consumer safety and drive innovative techniques is believed to be inhumane by some, while others agree that Animal Testing saves LIFE. This research paper evaluates the ethical dilemma borne by us. Animal Testing Define The obvious questions that are raised here are about the whole concept of Animal Testing and why is it necessary? Most of us are made to believe that Animal Testing is simply the torture of animals, striping them of their rights and cruel treatment of animals. This Definition of Animal Testing might have derived from various organizations that do not support the idea of Animal Research Studies as a whole and demand ethical treatment of animals through unjust terrifying acts of demonstrations and protests. These are the organizations who believe Animals have RIGHTS. It was argued upon by Robert Goldberg (1990) at the Washington conference of Committee for Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal with top dignitaries of the Humane Society about the issue of euthanizing millions of stray animals in public interest, and why the ruckus of using the same animals for the use in lab-testing. It was also argued upon at the conference over how activists have been indulged in terrorist like activities, as demonstrated by various raids at numerous labs conducting experiments on animals. The irony is, we as humans, will never be willing to come up and accept the fact that if we dont test the substances on Us, Animals are the next best alternatives to ensure Safety. There has always been an argument that animal testing results are inaccurate and also it is expensive to perform tests, secondly, animal testing is inhumane, and thirdly, there are alternatives to animal testing. According to former scientific executive of Huntingdon Life Sciences, animal tests and human results agree only 5%-25% of the time. Then looking at Tony Pages Vivisection Unveiled it states that less than 2% of human illnesses (1.16%) are ever seen in animals. In the tests of LD/50 short for Lethal Dose 50 per cent, a test wherein the animals receive a continuous dose of a dangerous chemical until half of them die , the Humane Society of the United States states that LD/50 tests do not yield enough data on the following: the poisonous doses of a chemical or substance, the prediction of poisoning signs and symptoms, the prevention or correction of over doses, and the specific cause of death in laboratory animals. Finally, looking at PETAs fact sheets, they argue that In many cases, animal studies do not just hurt animals and waste money; they harm and kill people, too. The drugs thalidomide, Zomax and DES were all tested on animals and judged safe but had devastating consequences fo r the humans who used them. The cost of animal testing is about $136 billion each year. Ethical Dilemma : Corporate Assessment PG Despite the fact that reliable modern humane tests are available in these days, Procter and Gamble insist on testing on animals claiming that this is the last resort that makes sure of their products safety. Whether it is ethical or unethical for Procter and Gamble to test on helpless animals is the question raised in this ethical dilemma. The case is analyzed and ethically evaluated based on: Deontological Theories Teleological Theories Casuist Theory All of these ethical theories aim at a common set of goals which are the ethical principles and that includes Beneficence, Least Harm, Respect for autonomy, and Justice. Deontological Theories: Deontological theories focus mainly on duties, obligations and rights. One of the most common deontological theories is the Kantianism which is known of its two formulations the Categorical Imperative I and the Categorical Imperative II. PRO ANIMAL TESTING: A scientist at Procter and Gamble would raise the question: is it right for humans to test on animals to save human lives? The proposed rule would be that humans can and have the right to test on animals in order to save human lives. So if we universalize the rule: it is accepted for humans to test and experiments with animals in order to save human lives. Furthermore, According to Immanuel Kant- the German philosopher- the only thing with any basic value is a good will. Since animals have no wills at all, they cannot have good will; they therefore do not have any basic value. Hence, it is ethical to test on animals because it saves humans lives. Procter and Gambles scientist would argue that moral rights and principles of justice apply only to human beings. Morality is a creation of social processes in which animals do not participate. Moral rights and moral principles apply only to those who are part of the moral community created by these social processes. Since animals are not part of this moral community, we have no obligations toward them. But we do have moral obligations to our fellow human beings, which include the duty to reduce and prevent needless human suffering and untimely deaths, which, in turn, may require the painful experimentation on animals. CON ANIMAL TESTING: A scientist working at Body Shop raise the question: Can Procter and Gamble mistreat and torture an animal claiming that this is the only way to make sure of their products safety? The proposed rule would be that organizations and companies can torture animals and demonstrate hideous experiments on them just because they believe that human beings are superiors to animals by being rational and intelligent. So if we universalize the rule, then a person can apply scientific experiments on any irrational unintelligent creature. Hence, that would include babies and people with mental difficulties and this would definitely be considered immoral and unethical on so many levels. That leads to the fact that although animals are irrational creatures, they feel the pain and the torture exercised on them. Thus, Procter and Gambles testing on animals can be termed unethical. Categorical Imperative II implies that individuals should act in a way that leads to a mutual benefit, treating both parties as ends in themselves. According to the case, animals are being misused in a way that is only considered beneficial for the human kind by Procter and Gamble. In other words, animals are being used as means to an end. Therefore, Procter and Gambles actions towards animals are unethical. Other deontological theories focus on the rights rather than duties and obligations. This leads to the controversial question: Do animals have rights? Even though there is no law that clearly states that animal rights are equal to human rights, animal rights campaigners have stated that animals have the right to live free from human exploitation, whether in the name of science or sport, exhibition or service, food or fashion. Animals have the right to live in harmony with their nature rather than according to human desires. Injecting chemical substances into a rabbits eye for seven days to produce a Head and Shoulders shampoo deprive him from any of these rights. Applying cancer and toxicity tests on rats and mice of optical brighteners and other laundry detergent ingredients leave them with no rights as well. These are just examples of the various experiments applied on animals in Procter and Gambles laboratories. Thus, testing on animals is unethical. Teleological Theories: Teleological theories focus on the consequences and the results of an action. Both of the Utilitarianism theories are perfect examples of such theories. An Act Utilitarians main objective is to take the action or the decision that would maximize the benefits for most people regardless of constraints such as law. On the other hand, a Rule Utilitarian takes into consideration justice and fairness as well as beneficence for most people. PRO ANIMAL TESTNG: Those who argue for the continuation of painful experimentation on animals state that society has an obligation to act in ways that will minimize harm and maximize benefits. Halting or curtailing painful experimentation on animals would have harmful consequences to society. Indeed, pain is an evil to be minimized, and scientists at Procter and Gamble do work to minimize pain when possible. Contrary to sensationalistic reports of animal rights activists, Procter and Gambles scientists are not a society of crazed, cruel, curiosity seekers. But there are instances when the use of alternatives, such as painkillers, would interfere with research that promises to vastly improve the quality and duration of human lives. Animal research has been the basis for new vaccines, new cancer therapies, artificial limbs and organs, new surgical techniques, and the development of hundreds of useful products and materials. These benefits to humans far outweigh the costs in suffering that relatively few animals have had to endure. Society has an obligation to maximize the opportunities to produce such beneficial consequences, even at the cost of inflicting some pain on animals. CON ANIMAL TESTING: From an Act Utilitarian point of view, Procter and Gambles animal testing does not only harm the whole animal kingdom; it is harming the human race and the environment as well. Animal testing is one of the main reasons of having various animals such as chimpanzees, macaques and white rhinos under threat, the threat of extinction. And as clarified earlier, animal testing is not the adequate way to save human lives. On the contrary, it is putting their lives in danger as well. A Rule Utilitarian who takes into account fairness and justice would add to the previous points that there is neither justice nor fairness applied when human beings use animals as disposable machines claiming that this is the only way to save as much human lives as possible (which is of course not true). Thus, According to the Act and Rule Utilitarianism theories animal testing held by Procter and Gamble is unethical. Casuist Theory: The casuist theory compares a current ethical dilemma with examples of similar ethical and their outcomes. PRO ANIMAL TESTING: Comparing our current ethical dilemma of Animal Testing and contrast the same with use of Canines as human companions, or use of animals for human safety would raise more doubts about our sincerity and perseverance to the issues raised in our society. Do we fail to conceptualize the degree of our social environment that would create a clear ethical ground that justifies why we do what we do. Although most of the training is under acceptable standards, some safety patrol dogs need rigorous training which can be brutal and inhumane. CON ANIMAL TESTING: Looking at the issue from a casuistic point of view, a perfect similar ethical dilemma would be of human slavery. Caucasians used to believe that they are superior to others and therefore used to slave Africans and treat them in a very inhuman way claiming that by doing so they are maximizing the benefits for the whole world. This was considered one of the norms back in those dark times. Nowadays it is considered immoral, unethical and completely unacceptable in every nation and society to treat another human being in an inferior way. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights clearly states now that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights and that everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. Peoples awareness for human rights has been increasing throughout the years and this was the reason behind this Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Unfortunately, scientists at Procter and Gamble are still unaware of the fact that animals are entitled to have their own rights. They are oblivious to the fact that we as human beings have no right to mistreat animals. They have no right as human beings to capture them, torture them and kill them with no mercy under the veil of saving human lives. On the contrary, animals should have the right to live peacefully with their nature and we as the rational creatures on this earth are obligated to defend the helpless kingdom and protect them from any harm. Thus, animal testing at Procter and Gambles laboratories can be simply ceased by declaring it unethical. Consumers First Looking at the whole idea from PGs point of view. According to PGs Human Safety Brochure and Sustainability (2009) overview, we have to first realize the fact that on an average about 4 billion people in the world use PG products every single day. This makes it their utmost priority that they reduce the risk of any type to the end-user. It has been for this very fact, that PG has been indulged in Animal Testing. The underlying factor here is that, we, as Humans, would be biased over the fact that if a particular product is tested on animals, and is guaranteed not to harm us or our children, we instantly change our opinion about the use of Animal Testing. According to Davis and Donald, we cannot have the ultimate assurance of the safety in the products we buy and use independent of animal testing. They specifically quote with present day technology, if the cost of achieving such assurance mandates the sacrifice of an occasional hairless mouse or rabbit or laboratory rat, then it is a price that we are prepared to pay. It is a delusion and a sham at this point to say we can achieve one without the other. Although the Ban on animal testing in various countries have given rise to various companies that are not indulged in Animal Testing, the Body Shop was one company that started off even before the ban with one view in mind Cruelty Free products. Many Researchers and Authors like Goldemberg and Robert (1992), believe that although a companys final product may not be tested on animals, but there is always a chance that down the line, some of the ingredients used were tested on animals by its suppliers or somebody else in the industry. Conclusion Medical Advances such as various vaccines, Insulin, treatment for kidney through dialysis, etc. Has been possible as a result of animal testing. At the same the use of various personal care products such has shampoos and cosmetics have been certified safe for human consumption as a result of constant development through Animal testing and research. During this journey, we have failed on many occasions to successfully justify animal testing when researches have gone wrong and caused harm and in certain cases death to Humans. Although we understand that Animal Testing has resulted in numerous data and statistics that would help generate computer simulation models and prove as a bench mark for further research, we can never stop Animal Testing as whole as it is fueled by our hunger for innovation. There is always room for efficiency and least harm. This can be achieved by the 3Rs theory developed by British zoologists William Russel and Rex Burch in 1959. The theory focuses on Replacement, Reduction and Refinement of animal testing and experimentations.

Voting Rates of the American Poor :: Politics

In The Working Poor, David Shipler reports that in the 2000 presidential election only 38 percent of Americans with incomes less than $10,000 voted compared to 75 percent of those with incomes over $75,000. (278) These sorts of statistics are not limited to 2000. In the six elections from 1980 to 2000, the average voter turnout of people in the bottom fifth of the income quintiles was 53 percent, while the top fifth averaged over 80 percent (â€Å"Election Results†). For the bottom fifth, the average household income was under $11,500 during each election year. The top fifth averaged an income close to $118,000 (DeNavas-Walt, et al.). The 2004 election was no different with 55 percent of the votes cast by people with incomes of $50,000 and up. That means over half of the votes cast were by a group that controls 70 percent of the nation’s wealth. In every election since 1964, when these statistics were first recorded, the South has had a lower voter turnout than the other three major regions. The South has also consistently had the highest poverty rate of the four regions. On average, there is a twenty-five to thirty percentage-point gap between the turnouts of the lowest and highest income quintiles in the United States (Cevrantes and Gluckman). Though it is clear the poor generally don’t vote, the reasons for this are not so clear. Education seems to be biggest factor. Less than 40 percent of citizens without a high school degree voted in the 2000 election, compared with an 80 percent turnout for those with an advanced degree. The percentages rise with more education. A connection to poverty can be drawn when considering that over 13 percent of workers without a high school degree are in poverty, compared with only about 1 percent of workers with a college degree. It should be noted these statistics concern only workers, and not the unemployed. As a United States census report noted, â€Å"Those with a high school education or less were more likely than those with more education to respond that they were not interested in the election or felt their vote would not make a difference.† Even more significant among the poor than the feeling that their vote will not make a difference is the feeling their vote may not be counted. Claims of voting irregularities, true or not, often keep the poor away from the polls. A large bloc of poor Americans disenfranchise themselves out of the fear of being disenfranchised. With a mindset that their vote will just be erased after leaving, the poor avoid Voting Rates of the American Poor :: Politics In The Working Poor, David Shipler reports that in the 2000 presidential election only 38 percent of Americans with incomes less than $10,000 voted compared to 75 percent of those with incomes over $75,000. (278) These sorts of statistics are not limited to 2000. In the six elections from 1980 to 2000, the average voter turnout of people in the bottom fifth of the income quintiles was 53 percent, while the top fifth averaged over 80 percent (â€Å"Election Results†). For the bottom fifth, the average household income was under $11,500 during each election year. The top fifth averaged an income close to $118,000 (DeNavas-Walt, et al.). The 2004 election was no different with 55 percent of the votes cast by people with incomes of $50,000 and up. That means over half of the votes cast were by a group that controls 70 percent of the nation’s wealth. In every election since 1964, when these statistics were first recorded, the South has had a lower voter turnout than the other three major regions. The South has also consistently had the highest poverty rate of the four regions. On average, there is a twenty-five to thirty percentage-point gap between the turnouts of the lowest and highest income quintiles in the United States (Cevrantes and Gluckman). Though it is clear the poor generally don’t vote, the reasons for this are not so clear. Education seems to be biggest factor. Less than 40 percent of citizens without a high school degree voted in the 2000 election, compared with an 80 percent turnout for those with an advanced degree. The percentages rise with more education. A connection to poverty can be drawn when considering that over 13 percent of workers without a high school degree are in poverty, compared with only about 1 percent of workers with a college degree. It should be noted these statistics concern only workers, and not the unemployed. As a United States census report noted, â€Å"Those with a high school education or less were more likely than those with more education to respond that they were not interested in the election or felt their vote would not make a difference.† Even more significant among the poor than the feeling that their vote will not make a difference is the feeling their vote may not be counted. Claims of voting irregularities, true or not, often keep the poor away from the polls. A large bloc of poor Americans disenfranchise themselves out of the fear of being disenfranchised. With a mindset that their vote will just be erased after leaving, the poor avoid

Human Cloning Essay

Introduction: The possibility of human cloning, raised when Scottish scientists at Roslin Institute created the much-celebrated sheep â€Å"Dolly†, aroused worldwide interest and concern because of its scientific and ethical implications. The feat, cited by Science magazine as the breakthrough of 1997, also generated uncertainty over the meaning of â€Å"cloning† –an umbrella term traditionally used by scientists to describe different processes for duplicating biological material. Given this information, you may ask, or maybe right now, you are wondering what actually â€Å"cloning† is. Biology defines cloning as the process of producing similar populations of genetically identical individuals that occurs in nature when organisms such as bacteria, insects or plants reproduce asexually. However, in Biotechnology, cloning is all about copying DNA fragments to produce a perfect â€Å"clone† of the specimen. Derived from the ancient greek word klon, meaning twig, it refers to the process whereby a new plant can be created from a twig. In this research paper, my main goal is to make you understand and answer our questions on what cloning really is all about, and how it will affect our lives once it is successfully done. Yes, I have my questions as well regarding the process, and the main reason this is the topic I chose is because the idea seems to be both simple and complex at the same time. As to why, I will be answering that as we dig deeper into the topic. Lastly, before we move to the next part of this very interesting research, you may want to know that â€Å"cloning† does not refer only to a single process. It has it’s own complexities, and there are several processes and methods in which cloning is divided and categorized. And now, into the topic we go. Historical Background: As a scientific and technical possibility, human cloning has emerged as an outgrowth of discoveries or innovations in developmental biology, genetics, assisted reproductive technologies, animal breeding, and, most recently, research on embryonic stem cells. Assisted reproductive techniques in humans accomplished the in vitro fertilization of a human egg, yielding a zygote and developing embryo that could be successfully implanted into a woman’s uterus to give rise to a live-born child. Animal breeders developed and refined these techniques with a view to perpetuating particularly valuable animals and maintaining laboriously identified genomes. Most recently, the isolation of embryonic stem cells and their subsequent in vitro differentiation into many different cell types have opened up possibilities for repairing and replacing diseased or nonfunctioning tissue, and thus possible research uses for cloned human embryos. The German embryologist Hans Spemann conducted what many co nsider to be the earliest â€Å"cloning† experiments on animals. Spemann was interested in answering a fundamental question of biological development: does each differentiated cell retain the full complement of genetic information present initially in the zygote? In the late 1920s, he tied off part of a cell containing the nucleus from a salamander embryo at the sixteen-cell stage and allowed the single cell to divide, showing that the nucleus of that early embryo could, in effect, â€Å"start over.† In a 1938 book, Embryonic Development and Induction, Spemann wondered whether more completely differentiated cells had the same capacity and speculated about the possibility of transferring the nucleus from a differentiated cell – taken from either a later-stage embryo or an adult organism – into an enucleated egg. As he explained it: â€Å"Decisive information about this question may perhaps be afforded by an experiment which appears, at first sight, to be somewhat fantastical. This experiment might possibly show that even nucle i of differentiated cells can initiate normal development in the egg protoplasms.† But Spemann did not know how to conduct such an experiment. Research with frogs fourteen years later encouraged progress toward the â€Å"fantastical experiment.† In 1952, the American embryologists Robert Briggs and Thomas J. King first successfully transferred nuclei from early embryonic cells of leopard frogs to enucleated leopard frog eggs. The â€Å"activated egg† began to divide and develop, became a multicellular embryo, and then became a tadpole. Embryologists in other  laboratories successfully repeated these initial experiments on different species of frogs. But additional experience also showed that the older and more differentiated a donor cell becomes, the less likely it is that its nucleus would be able to direct development. In 1962, the British developmental biologist John Gurdon reported that he had produced sexually mature frogs by transferring nuclei from intestinal cells of tadpoles into enucleated frog eggs. The experiments had a low success rate and remained controversial. Gurdon continued this work in the 1970s, and he was able to produce tadpoles by transferring the nucleus of adult frog skin cells into enucleated frog eggs. Later experiments established that many factors in addition to the intact nucleus are crucial to success. In retrospect, it is surprising that any of these earlier exper iments produced positive results. But despite their low success rates, these experiments demonstrated that the nucleus retained its full complement of genetic information and encouraged later investigators to explore mammalian cloning. The birth of Louise Brown in 1978, the first baby conceived through in vitro fertilization (IVF), was also an important milestone, because it demonstrated that human birth was possible from eggs that were fertilized outside the body and then implanted into the womb. As for the possibility of cloning animals from adult cells – especially mammals – the work in the intervening years focused largely on the reprogramming of gene expression in somatic cells, the transfer of nuclei taken from embryos in mammals (beginning with mice in the 1980s), and finally the work of Ian Wilmut and his colleagues at the Roslin Institute with adult nuclei, which led to the birth of Dolly on July 5, 1996. Since then, similar success has been achieved in cloning other mammalian species, including cattle, goats, pigs, mice, cats, and rabbits. The animal cloners did not set out to develop techniques for cloning humans. Wilmut’s goal was to replicate or perpetuate animals carrying a valuab le genome (for example, sheep that had been genetically modified to produce medically valuable proteins in their milk). Others, such as the cloners of the kitten CC, were interested in commercial ventures for the cloning of pets.6 Yet the techniques developed in animals have encouraged a small number of infertility therapists to contemplate and explore efforts to clone human children. And, following the announcement in 1998 by James Thomson and his associates of their isolation of human  embryonic stem cells, there emerged an interest in cloned human embryos, not for reproductive uses but as a powerful tool for research into the nature and treatment of human disease. So what does this mean? Having successfully cloning â€Å"Dolly† the sheep? I will be discussing that as we go further with the research. Let me present to you now some historical data regarding the actually topic â€Å"human cloning†. Here is an actually timeline of cloning processes that has been recorded throughout the past century: Cloning Timeline| 1885| August Weismann, professor of zoology and comparative anatomy at the University of Freiberg, theorized that the genetic information of a cell would diminish as the cell went through differentiation.| 1888| Wilhelm Roux tested the germ plasm theory for the first time. One cell of a 2-cell frog embryo was destroyed with a hot needle; the result was a half-embryo, supporting Weismann’s theory.| 1894| Hans Dreisch isolated blastomeres from 2- and 4-cell sea urchin embryos and observed their development into small larvae. These experiments were regarded as refutations of the Weismann-Roux theory.| 1901| Hans Spemann split a 2-cell newt embryo into two parts, resulting in the development of two complete larvae.| 1902| Walter Sutton published â€Å"On the Morphology of the Chromosome Group in Brachyotola magna†, hypothesizing that chromosomes carry the inheritance and that they occur in distinct pairs within a cell’s nucleus. Sutton also argued that how chromosome s act when sex cells divide was the basis for the Mendelian Law of Heredity.| 1902| German embryologist Hans Spemann split a 2-celled salamander embryo and each cell grew to adulthood, providing proof that early embryo cells carry necessary genetic information. This finally disproved Weismann’s 1885 theory that the amount of genetic information in cells decreases with each division.| 1914| Hans Spermann conducted and early nuclear transfer experiment.| 1928| Hans Spemann performed further, successful nuclear transfer experiments.| 1938| Hans Spemann published the results of his 1928 primitive nuclear transfer experiments involving salamander embryos in the book â€Å"Embryonic Development and Induction.† Spemann argued the next step for research should be the cloning organisms by extracting the nucleus of a differentiated cell and putting it into an enucleated egg.| 1944| Oswald Avery found that a  cell’s genetic information was carried in DNA.| 1950| First successful freezing of bull semen at -79 °C for later insemination of cows was accomplished.| 1952| First animal cloning: Robert Briggs and Thomas J. King cloned northern leopard frogs.| 1953| Francis Crick and James Watson ,working at Cambridge’s Cavendis h Laboratory, discovered the structure of DNA.| 1962| Biologist John Gurdon announced that he had cloned South African frogs using the nucleus of fully differentiated adult intestinal cells. This demonstrated that cells’ genetic potential do not diminish as the cell became specialized.| 1962 – 65| Robert G. McKinnell, Thomas J. King, and Marie A. Di Berardino produced swimming larvae from enucleated oocytes that had been injected with adult frog kidney carcinoma cell nuclei.| 1963| Biologist J.B.S. Haldane coined the term â€Å"clone† in a speech entitled â€Å"Biological Possibilities for the Human Species of the Next Ten-Thousand Years.†| 1964| F.C. Steward grew a complete carrot plant from a fully differentiated carrot root cell.| 1966| Marshall Niremberg, Heinrich Mathaei, and Severo Ochoa broke the genetic code, discovering what codon sequences specified each of the twenty amino acids.| 1966| John B. Gurdon and V. Uehlinger grew adult frogs after injecting tadpole intestinal cell nuclei into enucleated oocytes.| 1967| DNA ligase, the enzyme responsible for binding together strands of DNA, was isolated. 1969| James Shapiero and Johnathan Beckwith announced that they had isolated the first gene.| 1970| Howard Temin and David Baltimore each independently isolated the first restriction enzyme.| 1972| Paul Berg combined the DNA of two different organisms, thus creating the first recombinant DNA molecules.| 1973| Stanley Cohen and Herbert Boyer created the first recombinant DNA organism using recombinant DNA techniques pioneered by Paul Berg. Also known as gene splicing, this technique that allows scientists to manipulate the DNA of an organism – the basis of genetic engineering.| 1977| Karl Illmensee and Peter Hoppe created mice with only a single parent.| 1978| David Rorvik published the novel In His Image: The Cloning of a Man.| 1978| Baby Louise, the first child conceived throughin vitro fertilization, was born.| 1979| Karl Illmensee claimed to have cloned three mice.| 1980| In the case Diamond v. Chakrabarty, the United States Supreme Court  ruled that a â€Å"live, human made microorganism is patentable material.†| 1983| Kary B. Mullis developed the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) in 1983. This process allows for the rapid synthesis of designated fragments of DNA.| 1983| Davor Solter and David McGrath tried to clone mice using their own version of the nuclear transfer method.| 1983| The first human mother-to-mother embryo transfer was completed.| 1983 – 86| Marie A. Di Berardino, Nancy H. Orr, and Robert McKinnell transplanted nuclei of adult frog erythrocytes, thus obtained pre-feeding and feeding tadpoles.| 1984| Steen Willadsen cloned a sheep from embryo cells, the first verified example of mammal cloning using the process of nuclear transfer.| 1985| Steen Willadsen used his cloning technique to duplicate prize cattle embryos. | 1985| Ralph Brinster created the first transgenic livestock: pigs that produced human growth hormone.| 1986| Using differentiated, one week old embryo cells, Steen Willadsen cloned a cow.| 1986| Artificially inseminated surrogate mother Mary Beth Whitehead gave birth to Baby M. She tried and failed to retain custody.| 1986| Neal First, Randal Prather, and Willard Eyestone used early embryo cells to clone a cow.| October 1990| The National Institutes of Health officially launched the Human Genome Project to locate the 50,000 to 100,000 genes and sequence the estimated 3 billion nucleotides of the human genome.| 1993| M. Sims and N.L. First reported the creation of calves by transfer of nuclei from cultured embryonic cells.| 1993| Human embryos were first cloned.| July 1995| Ian Wilmut and Keith Campbell used differentiated embryo cells to clone two sheep, named Megan and Morag.| July 5, 1996| Dolly, the first organism ever to be cloned from adult cells, was born.| February 23, 1997| Scientists at the Roslin Institute in Scotland officially announced the birth of â€Å"Dolly†| March 4, 1997| President Clinton proposed a five year moratorium on federal and privately funded human cloning research.| July 1997| Ian Wilmut and Keith Campbell, the scientists who created Dolly, also created Polly, a Poll Dorset lamb cloned from skin cells grown in a lab and genetically altered to contain a human gene.| August 1997| President Clinton proposed legislation to ban the cloning of humans for at least 5 years.| September 1997| Thousands of biologists and physicians signed a voluntary five-year moratorium on human cloning in the United States.| December 5, 1997| Richard Seed announced that he intended to clone a human before federal laws could effectively prohibit the process.| early January 1998| Nineteen European nations signed a ban on human cloning.| January 20, 1998| The Food and Drug Administration announced that it had authority over human cloning.| July 1998| Ryuzo Yanagimachi, Toni Perry, and Teruhiko Wakayama announced that they had cloned 50 mice from adult cells since October, 1997.| January 1998| Botechnology firm Perkin-Elmer Corporation announced that it wold work with gene sequencing expert J. Craig Venture to privately map the human genome.| Should be interesting enough, right? So in 1998 there was actually a major advancement in the field of genealogy which took us a step closer towards human cloning. â€Å"The Human Genome†. The genome of homosapiens stored in 23 chromosome pairs, was launched – 30 years after the successful deciphering of the DNA code which was done in 1968. It came as a major boost for the much-aspired practice of human cloning. Even though animal cloning was still in it’s infancy stage, several scientists attempted to clone the human cells. In 2002, Clonaid – a human cloning company founded in 1997, revealed that it had sucessfully cloned humans, and made public a picture of a baby which was allegedly the first clone human, named Eve. The company followed up with more of such revelations, but it was difficult to assess the credibility of these claimsas they refused to undergo a DNA test of the mother and child. More of such claims also surfaced, though none were credible enough. Human Cloning Prohibition Act Just when things were falling in place and we were close to the development of a human clone, a major setback came in the form of the Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2009, which deemed cloning unlawful, unethical and an immoral activity. The opposition to cloning of humans came from scientific community, which was not satisfied with the results of animal cloning, and the religious communities, which believe that the cloning of humans is an activity which interferes with human life and procreation. Due to the much-debated ethical issues of cloning, both reproductive cloning and therapeutic cloning are opposed, and even banned in some countries, today. The fraternity of pro-cloning scientists and researchers though, are hoping that human cloning will be legalized some time soon – after which they can get back to their labs, and continue experiments related to the same. Though the death of various cloned animals has questioned the practice of cloning time and again, each of these experiments has put humans one step towards the seemingly impossible goal of successfully cloning its own kind. Techniques/Methods of Cloning: * Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer The term somatic cell nuclear transfer refers to the transfer of the nucleus from a somatic cell to an egg cell. A somatic cell is any cell of the body other than a germ (sex) cell. An example of a somatic cell would be a blood cell, heart cell, skin cell, etc. In this process, the nucleus of a somatic cell is removed and inserted into an unfertilized egg that has had its nucleus removed. The egg with its donated nucleus is then nurtured and divides until it becomes an embryo. The embryo is then placed inside a surrogate mother and develops inside the surrogate. * The Roslin Technique The Roslin Technique is a variation of somatic cell nuclear transfer that was developed by researchers at the Roslin Institute. The researchers used this method to create Dolly. In this process, somatic cells (with nuclei in tact) are allowed to grow and divide and are then deprived of nutrients to induce the cells into a suspended or dormant stage. An egg cell that has had its nucleus removed is then placed in close proximity to a somatic cell and both cells are shocked with an electrical pulse. The cells fuse and the egg is allow to develop into an embryo. The embryo is then implanted into a surrogate. * The Honolulu Technique The Honolulu Technique was developed by Dr. Teruhiko Wakayama at the University of Hawaii. In this method, the nucleus from a somatic cell is removed and injected into an egg that has had its nucleus removed. The egg is bathed in a chemical solution and cultured. The developing embryo is then implanted into a surrogate and allowed to develop. We’re done discussing the historical background of human cloning. And â€Å"cloning† also in the general sense was also, at the very least, has been thoroughly defined. I hope this has been informative enough to shed some light as to how cloning was little by little, brought into the mainstream of scientific breakthroughs. Moving on to the next part, I will now discussed the problems associated with human cloning. Statement of the Problem: The main problem on human cloning is that there has been no advancement to the process since the â€Å"genome†. And even though it was a major advancement, the process remains very inconsistent and very risky in many of it’s aspects, and there had been many issues regarding it. Conflicts about it’s ethical and moral implications are popped out the moment human cloning has been brought into the frontlines of scientific studies. We, as people have different cultures and traditions and these factors greatly influence the advancement of cloning in a far deeper sense. The question is, what exactly are the risks of cloning? Reproductive cloning is expensive and highly inefficient. More than 90% of cloning attempts fail to produce viable offspring. More than 100 nuclear transfer procedures could be required to produce one viable clone. In addition to low success rates, cloned animals tend to have more compromised immune function and higher rates of infection, tumor growth, and other disorders. Japanese studies have shown that cloned mice live in poor health and die early. About a third of the cloned calves born alive have died young, and many of them were abnormally large. Many cloned animals have not lived long enough to generate good data about how clones age. Appearing healthy at a young age unfortunately is not a good indicator of long-term survival. Clones have been known to die mysteriously. For example, Australia’s first cloned sheep appeared healthy and energetic on the day she died, and the results from her autopsy failed to determine a cause of death. In 2002, researchers at the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research in Cambridge, Massachusetts, reported that the genomes of cloned mice are compromised. In analyzing more than 10,000 liver and placenta cells of cloned mice, they discovered that about 4% of genes function abnormally. The abnormalities do not arise from mutations in the genes but from changes in the normal activation or expression of certain genes. Problems also may result from programming errors in the genetic material from a donor cell. When an embryo is created from the union of a sperm and an egg, the embryo receives copies of most genes from both parents. A process called â€Å"imprinting† chemically marks the DNA from the mother and father so that only one copy of a gene (either the maternal or paternal gene) is turned on. Defects in the genetic imprint of DNA from a single donor cell may lead to some of the developmental abnormalities of cloned embryos. From these information, it gives us the impression that cloning is too risky and many people believe that it is quite impossible to clone a human being when the results of the trial conducted are not very compelling and satisfactory. In fact, in some cases, the thought of cloning a human instills fear on most religious people because of their belief of the Divine and the laws in conjunction with their beliefs. Another question arises, thus creating more conflict and even bigger arguments about the process. Should humans be cloned? Physicians from the American Medical Association and scientists with the American Association for the Advancement of Science have issued formal public statements advising against human reproductive cloning. The U.S. Congress has considered the passage of legislation that could ban human cloning. Due to the inefficiency of animal cloning (only about 1 or 2 viable offspring for every 100 experiments) and the lack of understanding about reproductive cloning, many scientists and physicians strongly believe that it would be unethical to attempt to clone humans. Not only do most attempts to clone mammals fail, about 30% of clones born alive are affected with â€Å"large-offspring syndrome† and other debilitating conditions. Several cloned animals have died prematurely from infections and other complications. The same problems would be expected in human cloning. In addition, scientists do not know how cloning could impact mental development. While factors such as intellect and mood m ay not be as important for a cow or a mouse, they are crucial for the development of healthy humans. With so many unknowns concerning reproductive cloning, the attempt to clone humans at this time is considered potentially dangerous and ethically irresponsible. The problems are quite disturbing and it require lots of critical thinking, analysis, arguments, debates, etc. to point out the quintessence of the cloning problems. I would like to add a personal touch into the next part,  the causes and effects. Causes and Effects: Now, let’s view the concept in a much bigger perspective. At first, I had problems analyzing what may be the real cause(s) of the problems about the cloning process, and what are the implications of human cloning failures. So by gathering more significant information and resources, I was able to cite several causes as well as the effects of the problems I stated in a broad concept. All the talk in recent years about the possibility of cloning human beings has everyone a little unsettled. Even those most enthusiastic about the project speak in cautious, albeit hopeful and optimistic, terms. Most folks aren’t quite sure what to make of the prospect of â€Å"engineering† human beings, although they are a little troubled by the thought, while not a few are very concerned, and some even outraged, over the very idea. It’s good that there is a certain amount of tension in the air over the subject of human cloning, for in many ways it seems we may be about to rush in to something without giving adequate consideration of the ethical, moral, and even spiritual aspects of the proposal. It’s one thing to clone a sheep, or a pig. We’re accustomed to the idea of manipulating the genes and jeopardizing the well being of beasts for the sake of possibly improving the lot of human beings. It’s another thing to be talking about creating new people out of select gene pools for what can often sound like rather elitist purposes. Alarming terms such as â€Å"eugenics† and â€Å"master race† spring to mind. From a Biblical and Christian point of view there are at least three problems associated with the human cloning project. The prospect of engineering new human beings out of existing gene banks raises serious red flags in three important areas. * The hubris of science First is the area of scientific hubris. Following the flood the Lord, surveying the arrogant attempt of fallen men to build a city and tower to celebrate their own technological genius and ability, lamented that, having begun on such a hubristic path, humans would not be restrained to do whatever their fertile—albeit fallen—imaginations might concoct (Gen. 11:6). Modern science has often proceeded on the idea â€Å"if we can do it, we may,  and probably even should.† That kind of thinking has produced many of the marvels and wonders of modern science and technology; it has also contributed to the pollution of the environment, growing stockpiles of hazardous waste, and the threat to the continuation of civilization itself posed by the existence, and growing proliferation of, weapons of mass destruction. It borders on the realm of presumed omniscience, the kind of attitude that says, â€Å"We’re scientists, and we know what we’re doing; we don†™t have to listen to anybody other than ourselves.† Yet such a prerogative surely belongs to God alone. At present a lively discussion is underway over the ethical, moral, and spiritual implications of human cloning. Just because the technology is available—or, at least, nearly available—does not mean scientists should rush to do something the ramifications of which we have not carefully considered through thoughtful, patient discussions in the public square. President Bush was wise, in the summer of 2001, to set the brakes of the engine of the human cloning industry before it accelerated to runaway speed on a downhill curve with disaster as a very real possible outcome. But the pressure on scientists and labs to be â€Å"the first† in scientific discovery has led many technicians to take their research and experimentation to other venues, beyond the reach of Uncle Sam (or Uncle George). Our American culture has, in the past, rewarded the pride-driven efforts of scientists to be the first on their block with some new discovery or other. We award lavish prizes, put people’s faces on the cover of newsmagazines, celebrate them in the schools of the land, and otherwise make every effort to make them household names. What informed American does not know the names of people like Einstein, Pauling, Crick and Watson, and Hawking? Perhaps we should consider coming up with a prize for scientific restraint, awarding those scientists with the Mantle of Wisdom, let’s say, who, after hearing the opinions of sociologists, ethicists, and theologians (among others) determine that their current research project is better off left incomplete. * Human reductionism The second problem area, from a Biblical and Christian perspective, relates to the view of human beings that pervades and drives the human cloning project. Years of animal experimentation in the development of drugs and  treatments have solidified in the minds of many people that humans are just like animals, only a little more complex (all those feelings and stuff). We’ve been conditioned to believe that if we can make this thing work with animals then it’s probably safe, if not outright good, for humans. That’s why we sent monkeys up in space capsules before humans, and why we study lab rats to figure out how to produce happier and more obedient children. I’m not endorsing this practice across the board, mind you, just commenting on its ubiquity and general acceptance as a pathway forapplying the knowledge and technologies of science to questions of human well being. In the minds of many of our contemporaries cloning humans should be no problem once scientists have proven that we can clone animals safely and with beneficial results. But for Christians this is a serious problem, for we understand the Scriptures to teach that human beings are not simply advanced animals; they are the image-bearers of God, and whatever else that means, it is a designation unique to human beings, one that animals do not share (Gen. 1:26-28). As the image-bearers of God certainly we would expect some kinds of deference, some deeper considerations to be given before we apply the fruit of anim al research directly to human beings and communities. The reductionist approach of modern evolutionary science to the question of the nature of human beings has, as recently as the last century, led to human disaster on a massive scale. Tyrants of many stripes, having reduced certain humans to a sub-human level—if only because of ethnic, philosophical, or religious differences—felt no qualms about systematically eradicating those people who had been reduced to sub-human status by their particular worldview. It is not hard to imagine that cloned human beings—for example, some that might â€Å"go wrong† —could be easily disposed of, like lab rats, or that certain types of human beings, because of â€Å"deficient gene pools† (or whatever), might be disqualified from cloning. And, hey, if they aren’t worth cloning for the betterment of humankind, then what good are they? I recall Francis Schaeffer’s chilling observation regarding the straight line from abortion to euthanasia of the eld erly to culling the population for whatever reason: â€Å"If the fetus gets in the way, ditch it. If the old person gets in the way, ditch it. If you get in the way†¦Ã¢â‚¬  Human degradation and devaluation Finally, the problem of human reductionism leads to the degradation and devaluation of human life. If the human being  amounts to little more than a shopping mall of genes, available on demand for the future betterment of the race, then the genes are more important than any individual carrier thereof. There are scientists today who insist that everything about us, everything we think, do, are, aspire to, or become, is determined by our genes. Find the right genes, the best genes, and learn to control and combine them, and you can make life better for someone†¦or for their gene pool. It would be easy to lose sight of the forest (the human person) for the sake of the trees (the genes) in such a situation, and we would be back to classifying people by recognizable gene traits—like color of skin or eyes, shape of skull, ability to reason, or whatever anybody in authority determined to be the desirable traits. People would no longer matter, just traits—just as the young people Hitler rounded up for his breeding camps did not matter as individuals, only as possible conveyors of better genes for the future realization of the â€Å"master race.† Further, the fixation on genes can lead us to believe that things like affections, minds, and consciences—the very stuff of the soul (1 Tim. 1:5)—do not exist, and, thus, need not be taken seriously in seeking to solve problems relevant to the human situation. When everything can be reduced to genes, we don’t need such archaic and useless notions as compassion, self-control, aesthetic delight, forgiveness, love, and the like. All we need are better genes. We’ll figure out how to make those genes available—perhaps in gel caps or chewable tablets—and you’ll be better in no time! And if such â€Å"gene therapies† don’t seem to take hold in you, well then, it’s apparent yo u are beyond help. Your gene pool can’t be improved. We’ll therefore have to rethink your status, what â€Å"class† of human—or subhuman—you might be. And then If human beings are not the image-bearers of God, if they are only animals, to be manipulated, improved, refined, and, yes, cloned, then there is no reason to think that any of those notions of â€Å"humanity,† â€Å"humaneness,† or â€Å"human-kindness,† ideas that had their origins in the days when we thought otherwise about the kind of beings people are, should have any more utility in the brave new world we are creating. Which makes it extremely important that Christians not sit out the current debate about cloning. The hubris of science and the momentum of an evolutionary age are stoking the boilers of the cloning industry, and the engine is building steam for a full-speed-ahead-noholds-barred plunge  over the cliff and into the abyss of postmodern anthropology. For now, the brakes are set. But the present engineer won’t always be in the cabin. The time for Christians to be speaking and working for a change in the consensus of thinking abou t cloning is now, and, as a former president once asked of his cabinet, â€Å"If not us, who; if not now, when?† Let’s now move to the next part. How was I able to gather the information I have provided aside from my personal statements and analysis? How broad is my resource in collecting the data? Furthermore, what are the boundaries and how large, really, is the topic of human cloning is? These questions will be answered shortly as we go into the next part. Scope and Limitations: By now, you should have been enlightened to the significance of this research and a far more interesting idea is that, there are still more to be discussed about the topic. If you thought that the research was still lacking sense, let me share to you more details and let us explore the dark areas covered in this research. Thus, in this part, you should be able to understand the scope of my research, before I wrap this with the limitations naturally set by the topic and also before we form a conclusion to this research. * Arguments for: Some people argue that cloning is the logical next step in reproductive technology. Identical twins are natural clones, so reproductive cloning can be regarded as a technological version of a natural process. If a couple are infertile, why shouldn’t they be able to produce clones of themselves? If a couple have lost a child, why shouldn’t they be able to replace that loved individual with a clone if that is possible? Equally if someone has made a great contribution to science, music, the arts or literature, it seems like a good idea to produce more of them in the hope that we might benefit even more from what would effectively be a much longer working life. What is more, cloning a child could produce a tissue match for treatment of a life-threatening disease. * and against: Others feel equally strongly that human cloning is completely wrong. With the state of the science as it is at the moment it would involve hundreds of damaged pregnancies to achieve one single live cloned baby. What is more, all the evidence suggests that clones are unhealthy and often have a number of built-in genetic defects which lead to premature ageing and death. It would be completely wrong to bring a child into the world knowing that it was extremely likely to be affected by problems like these. The dignity of human life and the genetic uniqueness we all have would be attacked if cloning became common place. People might be cloned unwillingly – we all leave thousands if not millions of cells around everyday as we go about our normal lives shedding skin! Who will control who gets cloned? Companies are already making money storing tissue from dead children and partners until the time that human cloning becomes available. How much scope will there be for unscrupulous deali ngs if human cloning becomes a reality? * The Politics of Human Biotechnology Human genetic and reproductive technologies pose immense challenges for the human future. If used responsibly they offer new ways to treat disease and otherwise improve the human condition. If misused, they could exacerbate existing disparities, create new forms of discrimination and inequality, and open the door to high-tech eugenic practices. In short, biotech tools and practices have the power to promote or undermine individual well-being and public health, to create private fortunes or advance the public interest, and to foster or threaten a just and fair society. New human biotechnologies are being developed very rapidly. Neither the general public nor policy makers are fully aware of the nature and magnitude of the challenges they present. Regulatory oversight is inadequate at both national and international levels. Few civil society organizations have identified the issues these technologies raise as priority concerns. The result is an accelerating stream of technological, soc ial and commercial â€Å"facts on the ground† – new products and industries, cultural icons and images, and concentrations of wealth and influence – that undermines the prospect of democratic governance of human biotechnologies. Contrary to many accounts, however, the genie is not out of the bottle. The most dangerously consequential biotechnologies have yet to be fully developed and marketed. Influential individuals and institutions are beginning to focus on the risks at hand. Responsible scientists acknowledge the need for strong societal oversight. Many countries have adopted comprehensive policies that can serve as models for others. There is no reason that people of different nations, cultures, religions and philosophies cannot work together in support of policies needed to protect our common human future. Appropriate social oversight and regulation need not impede potentially beneficial medical research and applications. The next decade is a window of opportunity during which we can forge understandings and reach agreements on national and international policies that will allow us to reap the benefits and avoid the risks of these powerful biotechnologies. * Human Cloning Animal cloning has produced some remarkable results within the last few years, which has suggested to some that there should be a way to produce a human clone within the next year. Many news articles have appeared recently highlighting the potential to clone a human baby in order to replace a loved one who died as a newborn. Many social, moral, and ethical arguments have been raised in opposition to copying a person. For more details see AMA’s 1999 CEJA Report: The Ethics of Cloning (PDF, 41KB). But perhaps more important is the concern that we do not fully understand the science behind the successes from animal cloning experiments. Animal cloning success (and failure) Dolly, the sheep, was the first successfully cloned mammal (I. Wilmut et al., Nature 1997;385:810). Since 1997, gradual improvements in cloning technology have enabled researchers to generate mouse, cattle, goat, pig, deer, rabbit, cat, mule, and horse clones. While there have been no substantiated evidence for the cloning of humans, recent successes by South Korean researchers in generating stem cells from cloned human embryos (WS Hwang et al., Science 2005) have heightened concerns that this scenario is not beyond the realm of possibility. In spite of recent technological advances, animal cloning remains extremely inefficient. For every 100 experiments only one, two, or if lucky, perhaps three appear to produce a viable offspring in surrogate mothers. While scientific explanations for these failures remain to be defined, many researchers feel they represent nothing more than technical  hurdles that will one day be solved. Even then it’s survival beyond the perinatal period is unlikely. These is no reason to believe that any different outcomes will occur if and when human cloning begins. A quick lesson in cloning technology Before going into the details of why these abnormalities are thought to occur, it is important to have a basic understanding of what in essence happens in order to clone an animal. First, a donor cell is found, which has its original DNA extracted and discarded. Next is the addition of a nucleus from the desired animal that is to be cloned. The third step involves implanting the combined cell into the animal that the donor cell was appropriated from. Understanding the abnormalities This part of the puzzle is as yet unsolved, but theories do point us in some tangible directions. Scientists believe that the resultant cloning abnormalities are not traceable to the donor nuclei, but more likely explanations involve failures in genomic reprogramming. Genomic reprogramming in the natural way prior to embryogenesis (i.e., without cloning technology) involves a stage of development of the sperm and the egg known as gametogenesis, which can take months to years to develop a mature gamete. This process is sped up during cloning, and takes only minutes to hours. The process of configuring the exact state of the inner workings of the cell including such complex processes as methylation of the DNA may not be correct for the development of the embryo. Methylation of DNA and other complex functions are now known to be essential to the correct functioning of each human cell, since they ultimately control gene expression. And thus successful cloning may be dependent upon the donated DNA being correctly altered to the state of an early embryo. It is thought by some cloning experts that failure of the nuclear clones to produce viable offspring is due to inappropriate reprogramming of cells, which leads to unregulated gene expression. Screening tools, do they exist? Because of experience with animal clones, it is reasonable to conclude that future human cloning experiments will have the same high failure rates. The public has heard reassurance that the possibility of performing prenatal  genetic screening exists as a way to control quality. If these groups plan on using current routine prenatal diagnosis for the detection of chromosomal and/or other genetic abnormalities, they will not detect the types of epigenetic disturbances that may occur with cloning. There are no extra tools in the developmental pipeline to help improve detection. Possible reaction to human cloning failures Besides the public outrage that would accompany human cloning failures would in turn hinder science and genetics, research in areas such as embryonic stem cells for the repair of organs and tissues could be negatively impacted. Research is ongoing to develop reprogramming of certain cells to turn into specific tissues types, which could regenerate nerve, muscle, and other cell types, alleviating Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, and heart disease among other chronic illnesses. The potential benefits of therapeutic cell cloning are enormous, and this research should not be jeopardized with human cloning activities. Legislation Since early 1997 the United States National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC) has been looking at the complex issues that surround this controversial subject. NBAC reached a conclusion in 1997, when it reported back to (Former) President Clinton, that a moratorium on human cloning would be advisable. The moratorium, which is supported by the AMA, suggests that no Federal funds be allocated for human cloning. Senator Ben Campbell (R-Co) offered a bill (April, 2001) in the Senate to bar human cloning, which will ban any attempts to clone humans, regardless of whether government or private funds are used to finance the research. If this law is violated, the penalty would be up to ten years in jail and a fine of up to $10 million. An accompanying House bill has been introduced (H.R. 1260) by Rep. Brian Kerns (R-In). White House officials have indicated that President Bush would support legislation outlawing human cloning. Bills Introduced to Congress * H.R.2560 – Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2007 * H.R.2564 – Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2007 * S. 812 – Human Cloning Ban and Stem Cell Research Protection Act of 2007 The International Perspective: There is as little consensus among nations as there is among Congress members when it comes to the issue of cloning. In fact, nations are so divided that the United Nations abandoned efforts to create a worldwide treaty on human cloning. Instead, in 2005 the U.N. adopted a resolution aiming to provide guidance to countries attempting to arrive at a position on cloning and stem cell research. Many nations, including the UK, China, and South Africa, have explicitly prohibited reproductive cloning while allowing research cloning. Fewer nations have explicitly prohibited research cloning, which (as of 2006) is allowed in 10 countries. Human Cloning Theories & Further Analysis: (Answering questions why cloning should not be prohibited.) Medical breakthroughs – Human cloning technology is expected to result in several miraculous medical breakthroughs. We may be able to cure cancer if cloning leads to a better understanding of cell differentiation. Theories exist about how cloning may lead to a cure for heart attacks, a revolution in cosmetic surgery, organs for organ transplantation, and predictions abound about how cloning technology will save thousands of lives. You can read about many of the expected medical benefits in the essay â€Å"The Benefits of Human Cloning.† Medical tragedies – Many people have suffered accidental medical tragedies during their lifetimes. Read about a girl who needs a kidney, a burn victim, a girl born with cosmetic deformities, a man who needs a liver, a woman who is infertile because of cancer, and a father who lost his only son. All these people favor cloning and want the science to proceed. To cure infertility – Infertile people are discriminated against. Men are made to feel like they are not â€Å"real men.† Women are made to feel as if they are useless barren vessels. Worse, being infertile is often not considered a â€Å"real medical problem† and insurance companies and governments are not sympathetic. The current options for infertile couples are painful, expensive, and heart-breaking. Cloning has the potential to change the world for infertile couples almost overnight. To fund research – People whose lives have been destroyed or have not been able to reproduce in this lifetime due to tragedy could arrange to have their DNA continued and fund research at the same time. For example: A boy graduates from high school at age 18. He goes to a pool party to celebrate. He confuses the deep end and  shallow end and dives head first into the pool, breaking his neck and becoming a quadriplegic. At age 19 he has his first urinary tract infection because of an indwelling urinary catheter and continues to suffer from them the rest of his life. At age 20 he comes down with herpes zoster of the trigeminal nerve. He suffers chronic unbearable pain. At age 21 he inherits a 10 million dollar trust fund. He never marries or has children. At age 40 after hearing about Dolly being a clone, he changes his will and has his DNA stored for future human cloning. His future mother will be awarded one million dollars to have him and raise him. His DNA clone will inherit a trust fund. He leaves five million to spinal cord research. He dies feeling that although he was robbed of normal life, his twin/clone will lead a better life. Bad parents – Did your parents destroy your life? Were they alcoholic, child-beating molesters? Did you never have a chance? Interest ingly, human cloning allows you the opportunity to participate in choosing the parents for your clone. A Child’s right to be better than its parents – It’s been suggested that parents have a duty to see that their children have better lives than they do. This may mean making our children live longer, helping them to be resistant to cancer, heart disease, any familial diseases, and all the other problems that can be cured using what we learn from human cloning technology. To take a step towards immortality – Human cloning essentially means taking a human being’s DNA and reversing its age back to zero. Dr. Richard Seed, one of cloning’s leading proponents, hopes that cloning will help us understand how to reverse DNA back to age 20 or whatever age we want to be. Cloning would be a step towards a fountain of youth. To make a future couple financially secure – With human cloning you could give a couple in the future both a child from your DNA and the financial assets from your lifetime to start out financially secure instead of struggling as most couples do now. Because you believe in freedom – Freedom sometimes means having tolerance for others and their beliefs. In America, some people believe gun control and some don’t. Some people believe in one religion and others in another. In a free society we know that we must tolerate some views that we don’t agree with so that we all may be free. For this reason human cloning should be allowed. To be a better parent – Human cloning can improve the parent-child relationship. Raising a clone would be like having a child with an instruction manual. You would have a head start on the needs and talents of your child. We are not saying that a clone would be a carbon copy with no individuality. Our talents and desires are genetic, developmental, and environmental. We would have a head start on understanding the genetic component of a cloned child. Endangered species could be saved – Through the research leading up to human cloning we will perfect the technology to clone animals, and thus we could forever preserve endangered species, including human beings. Animals and plants could be cloned for medical purpo  ses – Through the research leading up to human cloning, we should discover how to clone animals and plants to produce life-saving medications. You want your clone to lead the life that was meant to be yours – The Human Cloning Foundation has been surprised by the number of people that write to say that they would like to have a clone so that it may lead the life that was meant to be theirs. Typically, these are people who have suffered some terrible physical or mental handicap and feel robbed of the opportunities they should have had in life. Some see this life as a sacrifice so that the life of their clone may be enriched. To have a better sense of identity – If we had some information about ourselves, perhaps we could sooner or better discovery who we are. A clone would have access to a tremendous amount of information about his or her parent that could greatly help in understanding one’s psyche and physical attributes. All of this information could provide a better sense of identity. Because so many people want cloning – Please read the dozens of essays by people from all over the world in support of human cloning and published by the Human Cloning Foundation. Religious Freedom – At least two religions, the Raelian Religion and the Summum Religion, believe in cloning as one of their tenets. Because of the special relationship that twins ha ve – Twins often have very special relationships. While many people go through their lives never having a special relationship with another person, there are stories of twins in which they are so close they are perhaps psychically connected. More than one person has written the Human Cloning Foundation (including a twin that feels close to her identical twin) that since a clone is virtually the equivalent of an identical twin, they suspect a very special relationship would exist between a clone and its DNA parent. Some twins describe their twin relationship as more wonderful and meaningful any other relationship in  their lives. Economics – Countries that fail to research human cloning will suffer economically. The industrial revolution and Internet revolutions enriched the United States of America. Biotechnology will lead the next economic revolution. Those countries that jump in first will reap the rewards. Those who fail to begin research right away will fall behind. As an example: Japan failed to jump on the Internet bandwagon and is now playing catch-up. Japan has banned human cloning and will probably suffer by falling behind during the biotech revolution. One day in the not too far distant future, Japan may realize its mistake. Gay couples – From one of our readers: â€Å"gay couples go through so much†¦not to mention all the controversy†¦when they decide that they are ready for a baby. People question their right to bring a child that technically isn’t related to them into a lifestyle that falls below societies views of normal†¦..human cloning could allow two gay men to take 23 chromosomes from each male and put them into a single egg to truly have a baby of their own. also two gay women could use this technology to conceive a child of their own using their individual 23 chromosomes.† (To our knowledge the type of reproduction described here has not yet been done, but someday it will probably be possible.) A cure for baldness – From one of our readers: â€Å"But how about the possibility of using cloning technology to get more hair on a balding scalp. For example cloning can be used to get more hair from a few sample hair follicles or grafts from the patient’s head and then grow them†¦.later transplant the grafts where it is needed. This will eliminate the need to do an incision in back of the scalp for donor hair and will literally give the patient MORE hair.† Because the sick will demand it – Those resisting human cloning research will probably find themselves shouted down by the sick and the maimed who desperately need such research. Human cloning technology promises to cure many or all incurable diseases and the moral weight of the dying and infirm will undoubtedly sway the politicians more than the arguments of the healthy, who often remain ignorant of the potential of human cloning, because they have never been motivated by suffering to look desperately for a cure. Hope – On the Charlie Rose television show on February 14th, 2001, three anti-cloners debated against one reporter. The anti-cloners made the case for stem cell research while alleging that cloning itself would not result in any major scientific breakthroughs. It is  likely that the anti-cloners are quite wrong. Learning the process of reprogramming, differentiation, and dedifferentiation is likely to result in just as many medical miracles as stem cell research. The two lines of research go hand in hand and should complement each other. The three anti-cloners came across as people who would destroy hope. The kept alleging that things were impossible. They reminded me of the same types of people who proclaimed that cloning was impossible years ago. Furthermore, they seemed happy and willing to take away the hope of infertile couples and others with severe diseases that human cloning technology might one day lessen their suffering or save their lives. The anti-cloners also seemed to feel that they had the ability to predict the timing and course of science advancement, which history has shown to be folly. Living on through a later-born twin – Some childless people feel that by being cloned by their later-born twin would help them o r their DNA to live on in the same sense that people who have children live on. Alright! So I think I am able to gather credible information/data regarding this research. To wrap things up, human cloning may or may not be limited to the information contained in this research. The best thing to do if you are still skeptical about this research is to conduct your own and compare it with this one, or make this your guide to better understand the human cloning topic. Such a broad topic cannot be summarize in a few pages such as this, if I’m contradicting myself there, you might as well think of it deeply and you may have the answer too, that in it’s own way, really, human cloning may be explained as simply as process of creating copies of actual human beings or as complex as the information presented. Recommendation/Conclusion: This is where I get to share to you my own views, opinions, analysis, criticisms, and other things required to form an excellent conclusion to this brilliant topic. â€Å"Human Cloning† had really piqued my interest and in some way, I cannot have enough of it for myself. My recommendation is that, if you’re not satisfied with this, please do make yourself comfortable by conducting your own research, and making your own research paper about the topic. To make this brief, I really am a skeptic so I am not easily sucked into the gravity or concreteness of the information/data I have acquired. I mean, I do not easily decide whether something should be approved or not. Being a student of course, is both advantageous and disadvantageous in understanding the concept of this topic. But I’m not saying that my understanding is limited only in a short extent. What I mean, is that I cannot give a definite answer to the question I am about to leave. Instead, I can only share to you my ideas about the topic, which, I already did by discussing to you this research in both narrative and informative sort of way. Therefore, I have reached the conclusion that the understanding of the topic is still unequivocally relative to whoever reads this. I choose to let the sense of â€Å"conclusion† flow through the minds of the readers, thus making this conclusion, â€Å"conclusive† based on the understanding of each people who read this research paper of mind. Let me leave to you my final question – â€Å"to clone? Or not to clone?†

Look closely at how Lennie and George speak and behave here. What does it reveal about their relationship? Essay

George and Lennies relationship in my opinion is one like a father has with a son, George is always there for lennie, he cares for him and wants the best for him, and in his own way, Lennie feels the same and acts the same. The extract given, located at the start of the book in chapter one, is one that introduces George and Lennies dream to the reader as well as establishing to the reader the closeness of their relationship, without this part in the book, we would not understand how the two men are like father and son, or how they really do care for each other, and that is why this text is so significant to the text as a whole. This extract is about Lennie trying to get George to tell him the story about them in the future (their dream), and despite not wanting to at first, Lennie is clearly used to getting his own way and acts like a child in order to get so. George at the end of the extract however, shows his authority and is very firm when there has been enough, Steinbeck makes it obvious that the two have known each other for a long time as Lennie speaks ‘craftily’ and ‘pleaded’ in order to get his own way from George. Lennie has learnt during their time together how to make George give in. This is like a father son relationship because the child often knows how to treat their parents in order to get their own way, whether with a flutter of the eyelashes or a really nice hug, children know how to get their own way, and this is the case with Lennie. Another reason it is like a father son relationship is because George is giving Lennie Hope when he says ‘we got a future’, It is a parents job to give their child something to look forward to in a hard time and as it was the great depression when the novel is set, George does this excellently with the dream of the ranch. It gives Lennie something to dream about. It is also like a father son relationship, because it becomes clear from Steinbeck’s style of writing that George has told the story of the ranch and rabbits to Lennie so many times: â€Å"He repeated his words rhymetically† This shows that George has told the story enough times to Lennie that he knows it off by heart and Lennie, a forgetful character knows it also. This shows that George is once again like a father figure to lennie, telling him bedtime stories. Fathers and Sons know they have each other to look after them and this is what Lennie and George are also both aware of: â€Å"Because I got you to look after me† This shows that they are both aware of the close relationship they have and how they are both aware of how the other one appreciates them as much as they appreciate them. This is a nice part of the novel and it leaves the reader with a sense that not everything is bad. One of the themes of the book is loniness but this part here shows that it is not George or Lennie that experience this, or at least at the beginning. And finally, George makes it clear to the reader that he is the authoritive person in the relationship as he makes it clear when he â€Å"ain’t got time for no more†, he is the one that is in charge and Lennie seems to appreciate that. The fact that George is the authoritve figure is a good way to explain why he seems so tense and agitated in this extract: â€Å"you getta kick outta that†, because he feels like he is in charge of lennie, and doesn’t want him to do anything wrong or get into trouble, knda like when a parent takes their child shopping. It is clear form reading the extract that lennie is the child and George is the father figure, but they both appreciate and enjoy each others company. 6c) How does Steinbeck present the theme of loneliness in Of Mice and Men? Loneliness is one of the main themes of mice and men and that becomes apparent from early on in the novel. Almost all of Steinbeck’s characters experience loneliness at some part in the play, although some like Curley’s Wife, Crooks and Candy experience it more than others. Steinbeck makes it very clear at the beginging that the novel is going to be based on loneliness as the novel is set in a place cale ‘Soledad’ which means loneliness in Spanish, it is these small details that in my opinion makes Of Mice and Men, such a clever and valiable read. Curley’s wife is a character that it becomes more evident throughout the book is suffering from loneliness. She has married a man she hardly knew before and now is the only lady on the ranch, people are afraid to talk to her because they don’t want to get into trouble with Curley, the short tempered bosses son. Curley’s wife is seen as a tart by the ranch men, and are a main cause of her loniness. She often goes around asking for Curley and the men are very blunt and untalkative towards her. She tells Lennie of her loneliness: â€Å"I get awfully lonely†, This shows that she knows she is lonely and addimits she â€Å"just wants someone to talk to†, Steinback uses Curley’s wife as a character that experiences Lonliness that is very obvious to the reader as she admits it herself. Crooks is another character that experiences Lonliness and in my opinion, it is crooks that experiences Lonliness the most. Crooks is a Stable buck and is black, which in 1930’s America meant there was segregation. He lives on his own in the stables and is not allowed to join in with the other men. He is just expected to enjoy his own company and so he just reads books, which makes him a very knowledgeable character. Crooks character is not very signifivant in the play, but he has a whole chapter devoted to him nevertheless, he makes it clear when Lennie stumbles across his room that the life he is experiencing is one that is not right. Crooks describes his loneliness briefly, â€Å"if I see something, I aint go no one to tell me it aint real†, Steinbeck has used something so simple to show just how lonly crooks is. He literally has no one! Annother character that experiences loneliness is Candy. His ancient dog is shot for being smelly and ‘no good’, yet it was this dog that had kept candy from being lonly for all these years. When Steinbeck describes the dog being walked out of the bunck house by Carlson, Candy immediately goes into his own world of regret and lonlieness. No one understands why Candy is so upset because no one has experienced having someone. Also when candy is trying to stop Carlson from convincing him to shot the dog, none of the other ranch ahnds stick up for Cnady, instead they all keep quiet and don’t get involved. This shows that in of Mice and men, it is every man for himself and that is another example of loneliness. When George goes down town with the other ranch hands, it is Lennie that experiences Lonliness. He has always had George to keep him company, but when crooks asks â€Å"what would you do if George did’nt come back†, Lennie takes it literally and experiences loneliness for what could be lennies first time. Lennie immediately gets violent and this shows the reader how much lennie really needs George. And finally, George. George is in my opinion the only main character that we don’t get a sign experiences loneliness. Throughout the play he has Lennie to keep him company and soon builds up a friendship with both Candy and Slim, so that as soon as Lennie runs off he has these to then keep in company in the hard time. Steinback was very clever at presenting the theme of loneliness. Almost every character experiences it, yet it is not something that you notice overly when reading the book. Steinback managed to show diffenent levels of loneliness from Crooks who has no one, to Lennie who always has George looking after him, even to the last page in the book! Without the theme of loneliness in Of Mice and Men, the novel would not be the same. It is this loneliness that drives curley’s wife to talk to lennie before he kills her , and that causes George to understand he needs to kill lennie himself. The theme of lonlineness was also a theme of the workers during the great depression in America during the 1930’s. As migrant workers travelled from ranch to ranch to find jobs, never staying at one place long and travelling on their own, meant loneliness was experienced greatly, so Steinbeck managed to make his novel even more realistic by doing this.

Explore the Theme of Monstrosity in Frankenstein Essay Essays

Explore the Theme of Monstrosity in Frankenstein Essay Essays Explore the Theme of Monstrosity in Frankenstein Essay Essay Explore the Theme of Monstrosity in Frankenstein Essay Essay Montrosity is a key in Frankenstein. and it affects both the Creature and Victor. whilst at the same clip. Shelley argues that society is monstrous through unfairnesss of the clip and the societal conventions. Frankenstein could be said to be the monster himself- when he says â€Å"miserable monster† whom â€Å"I had created† . we see Shelley implicitly suggest. through the alliterative phrase. that merely as â€Å"Adam was created in God’s image† so excessively was the Creature born in the image of Victor. Furthermore. the thought that Frankenstein is himself the monster is reinforced by â€Å"or instead cell† . â€Å"Cell† refers to a prison cell. and is used symbolically to stand for the thought that merely like a cell is for felons. who perform Acts of the Apostless of monstrousity. so to is Frankenstein the â€Å"criminal† perpetrating an act of â€Å"monstrosity† . On the other manus. we could reaso n that it was non so much the act of creative activity that was monstrous. but instead Frankenstein’s reaction. By composing â€Å"I ran out of the room† we see Victor execute the ultimate rejection. and hence. eschewing the responsibilty that exists in the double star between â€Å"Parent† and â€Å"Child†- as John McRae argued. It is interesting to observe that Frankenstein rejects the monster because of an unconditioned selfishness- â€Å"the beauty of the dream vanished† implies that Frankenstein’s physical construct does non equal that of his mental construct. and that because Frankenstein’s program are in confusion. his rational scientific methods- â€Å"I selected†¦in proportion† show this- are replaced by emotional responses ; which for him. is territory unknown- in the same manner Walton seeks to â€Å"ascertain the secrets† or how the Animal wants to understand human behavior at the De Lacy’s. Therefore. we see a connexion between Victor and the Creature- whom he describes as â€Å"miserbale monster† . Furthermore. the fact that Frankenstein can merely react to the Creature’s birth in empirical. scientific observations- â€Å"pearly white dentitions. dull eyes†- constrasts with Elizabeth’s response to William’s death- â€Å"O I have murdered my child† . By portraying Elizabeth in a positive light- she forms an emotional response. which juxtaposes with the unfertile feelings of Frankenstein at the construct of the Creatue. Shelley implies that adult females present a greater grade of humanity- and therefore criticises the male dominated society on education- whilst they may read â€Å"Shakespeare† and â€Å"Agrippa† . adult females will be worldly-wise. ( no uncertainty influence by her feminist female parent ) and that they are necessary to forestall freaks. This thought of the female function is reinforced by the fact that as the novel progresses. the adult females are easy being removed- first his Mother. so Justine and so Elizabeth- â€Å"I saw Elizabeth†¦held the cadaver of my dead mother† . This presents Frankenstein’s mental degregation and finally. the ctalyst for the mosntrous act- so Shelley presents the thought of a duality between adult male and women- Darwin supported this by proposing the hierachy of reproducion- adult male and adult female is better than adult male entirely. However. it could besides be argued that Frankenstein’s scenes augment his monstrousity- we see a sense of isolation- â€Å"solitude† is repeated. connoting that by enforcing self-exile. Frankenstein detaches himself from society and its regulations and that he has become an â€Å"outsider† ( McCrae ) much as the monstrousity that Victor calls the Creature. is besides an foreigner. Indeed the connexion between the two is best examined by the Shelley usage of the mountain-top- â€Å"Chamonuix. where I saw him†- which alludes to the thought of the Creator and Creation meeting ( Hayward ) . both as equal. with both. arguably as montrous. Victor for abondoning the Creature. and the Creature ( for Victor ) a representation fo his failure. By utilizing â€Å"Solitude and â€Å" Filthy Workshop of Creation† . Shelley implies that this isolation leads to ideas of monstrousity- Godwin influecned her argiung it â€Å"was a nusery of madmen† . This separation from society is symbolic excessively. If Geneva is â€Å"Eden† . so by widening against the bounds of knowledge-â€Å"if no adult male broke the rules† suggests no remorse- he cut himself off. much like Lucifer in Paradise Lost- and therefore. Shelley implies that this interior monster within Frankenstein and all of us. can merely be restrained by a balance- whether. male or female . or equal Torahs. The thought that the monstrousity is within Frankenstein ( and hence us ) is suggested by â€Å"wildness in his eyes†- he claims the Animal to be â€Å"wild† . but if the eyes are â€Å"windows to the sould† . Shelley suggests and unconditioned montrosity in him ( and us ) ; an â€Å"id† that is the animal desires. This contrasts the thought of the Monster’s â€Å"dull eyes†- which challenges the thought that the Creature is the monstrosity- this challenge is the ground why Shelley uses the Chinese Box Narrative- the assorted â€Å"narritve eyes† makes us explicate our ain opinion. In fact. the Moster. may be the most human of us all- he â€Å"imitates the physiognamy and manners† in the same manner that Justine did. yet both are treated below the belt. This thought of an unjust intervention alludes to Shelley’s belief that monstorusity exists in society- so whilst we can state it was Victor’s nature to be monstorus ( and that society placed bounds to forestall this ) . the nurturing of him within society is what leads to the freak arguably. In the instance of the Justine. the sarcasm is that she is treated â€Å"un-JUSTlY† reverse to her name- which possibly could be Shelley’s sly mention to her desire for female eqaulity ( influenced by Wollstencraft –the womens rightist motehr ) – a name is afforded to all. and Justine’s name contain’s justice- therefore. when she â€Å"is found guilty†- there is a trangression of nature. in the same manner that Frankenstein transgresses nature by making life. This presents the thought that society is excessively speedy to judge- merely as Frankenstein believes â€Å"seemingly to catch me† . Justine is rapidly found guilty- regardless of Elizabeth’s plea- no admiration Shelley nowadays s the jurisprudence in such a negative light- â€Å"judge†¦meddle in the dark side of human nature† . because it is flawed and makes roseola determinations. Therefore. we see Shelley see society as the monster. To reason. freak is pervades throughout the novel. impacting all characters and being influenced by puting and society. Yet. in the same manner that the Creature was Frankenstein’s creative activity. the novel coould be seen as her monster-shunned by contempories but exposing the reatiy of freak within us all.