g these avenues of research. For example, a scientist by the name of Richard Seed plans to clone babies for infertile couples. "Seed, who is not a medical doctor, says he has already assembled a group of doctors willing to work with him and has four couples who have volunteered to be cloned. Seed plans to use the same technique utilized by Scottish scientists in 1996 to clone the adult sheep Dolly. If he is barred from pursuing his work in the United States, he plans to go to another country. He said he has talked with officials in Mexico, and also was considering the Bahamas." Also, "cloning and the reprogramming of DNA is the first serious step in becoming one with God" (Flock). Starting in Chicago, Seed plans to set up profitable human clone clinics nationally. Whatever the Seed brothers are telling their human clients, they are certainly not able to tell them what the risks might be, since no one yet knows the range or magnitude of risks to humans. All of these are good reasons for cloning, but who is to say that this technology should be used in the first place? There are several reasons for banning cloning and numerous dangers associated with the cloning of humans. It's much easier to clone sheep or goats than humans, and according to the facts, it took over two hundred tries to produce one cloned sheep; the unsuccessful attempts were simply discarded. "An experiment to clone humans would require repeated efforts, with the possibility of many failures in "test" cases leading to success. Dolly the sheep took 277 tries, with a number of ugly mistakes, before a healthy and complete sheep was born. Experiments with humans could take between 100 and 1,000 tries, some geneticists speculate" (Marquands). Are scientists to place this kind of value on human life? If this is true, they have crossed the line in scientific experimentation. Even the scientist who created Dolly, Dr. Wilmut and his coworkers believe that it would be unethical...
