EAP5 - Model Critical Literature Review

Tiddle, R 2004, ‘The Great Human Cloning Debate’, Science Today, vol. 6, no. 5, pp. 67-
69.
Brown, C 2005, ‘Why clone?’, God is good, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 45-46.

Cloning has become a reality in modern-day science recently, as researchers

from various countries have successfully begun to clone animals. These
breakthroughs have led to society discussion about whether humans should be
cloned. ‘The Great Human Cloning Debate’, by Tiddle, while not stating a
personal position, examines the various viewpoints of this discussion, with an
informative and well-researched paper. Another article by Brown, entitled ‘Why
Clone?’ argues against cloning and gives a rather biased viewpoint of this new
and expanding area of science.

Tiddle’s article examines various reports and studies throughout the article, and
entire sections at the end of each chapter are devoted to original papers from
key writers in the area. In addition, a comprehensive reading list is provided at
the end of the book. Tiddle does not directly support or oppose the cloning of
human beings. In fact, in the lengthy introduction it is stressed that the goal of
the paper has been to encourage informed debate about an issue that can no
longer be ignored, thanks to the rapid rate of technological change.

In contrast, Brown’s article seeks to persuade readers that cloning is against the
word of God and should be rejected by society. The writer cites various studies
from mainly religious groups, which seek to show that cloning is not condoned
by the Bible and will lead to great harm in society. Brown also warns of the risks
of cloning historical figures such as Hitler and Stalin, which could, in the writer’s
view, lead to further catastrophe in the world. It is also stated that cloning is yet
another method by which large multinational companies can create more wealth,
by allowing women to select particulars genes for reproductive purposes. Brown
uses passages from the Bible to endeavour to persuade the reader that pursuing
the science of cloning is anti-Christian and therefore not allowed.

‘The Great Human Cloning Debate’ is an extremely useful paper for students or
science enthusiasts who want a broad overview of the controversial debate on
human cloning. The style and general layout allow for easy reference to key
arguments both for and against. Perhaps it would have been better for the writer
to clearly state his/her opinion, but for a general introduction to the area, this
article would be very useful. The comprehensive reading list can guide readers
to other more detailed articles concerning particular fields of cloning and
examples of current research studies being undertaken. One weakness this
reader noticed is that there are not enough diagrams or illustrations, so when
the article tries to explain the actual process of cloning it is sometimes difficult
to follow. If there had been more colour graphics it would have made
understanding much easier.
‘Why Clone?’, in contrast, may only provide one rather extreme view on the
negative aspects of cloning, which in fact have not yet been proven. It does not
provide a balanced overview of the arguments for and against cloning, and
endeavours to persuade readers that there are no benefits to cloning. The
argument that multinational companies are seeking to make money from the
science of cloning may well be true; however the writer fails to provide any
evidence to support this theory. In addition, the claim that women will select
preferred genes when having a baby is also quite sensational, and there is little
evidence to back this up. The section on cloning of historically evil figures such
as Hitler is probably meant to frighten readers into agreeing with the views of
the writer, and may not particularly appeal to educated audiences. The article
overall is rather narrow in its focus and often sensational, even though it does
represent the opinions of an important section of the community. It would have
been better, on balance, to provide more evidence to support some arguments
put forward in the article. For example there is no citation following the writer’s
statement that “there have been many studies to date which show that cloning
is extremely dangerous for pregnant women”. As it stands, it is rather weak in
this regard.

In summary, readers wishing to gain a broad understanding of current issues

surrounding the cloning debate would be wise to read the Tiddle article, as it is
easy to access and quite comprehensive. For an insight into religious views on
the cloning debate, readers may wish to read the Brown paper, but should bear
in mind that it is rather extreme and does not provide balanced information.

[764 words]