In this blog post, we explore how the remarkable advances in genetic engineering technology could lead to ethical issues and social conflicts such as human cloning, discrimination, and disregard for life.
In 1997, Ian Wilmut and his colleagues announced that they had successfully cloned a sheep named Dolly. Cloning technology was not new, but this was the first time it had been used on an adult cell, causing a huge social uproar. The most notable debate was whether human cloning was now possible and, if so, whether it should be allowed. Numerous philosophers and scientists, including Richard Dawkins and Hilary Putnam, and even Ian Wilmut himself, opposed human cloning. I also oppose human cloning and believe that it would bring a catastrophe to humanity on par with nuclear bombs. Despite these concerns, 20 years have passed since Dolly was cloned, and genetic engineering and nuclear replacement technology have brought us many benefits and become an integral part of our lives. Genetic engineering technology is very attractive. However, compared to its appeal, genetic engineering technology targeting humans poses many ethical and social dilemmas. At the forefront of these dilemmas is human cloning. So why are these technologies so problematic? If technology continues to advance in the future, human cloning may become possible. If human cloning could lead to a very negative future, is it possible to prevent it?
First, genetic engineering emerged in the 1970s with the advent of genetic recombination technology and refers to the field of artificially altering existing natural organisms through genetic manipulation, such as human genome research, genetic recombination, and cloning. Among these, cloning has been developed since Robert Briggs and Thomas King successfully cloned tadpoles in 1952. and numerous technological advances have been made, including the cloning of mice and Dolly the sheep. Dolly caused an even greater social uproar because she was created using nuclear transfer technology, in which a nucleus from a differentiated cell was injected into an egg cell that had had its nucleus removed, creating a genetically identical organism. This meant that it was possible to create a genetically identical human being by obtaining a nucleus from an existing human being and using nuclear transfer technology. Therefore, if genetic engineering technology continues to advance in the future, it will be possible to enter the realm of human cloning. There are many concerns about this, but there are also many who support it.
Genetic engineering technology itself is widely supported, and many people are in favor of the development of human cloning technology accompanied by the development of social systems and regulations. Nuclear replacement technology can be used in animal cloning to produce healthy, genetically strong offspring, contributing to increased farm profitability, and stem cells can be obtained from differentiated cells to treat cellular diseases such as Parkinson’s disease. Genetic engineering technology, represented by GMOs, is already present in many households and is contributing significantly to the improvement of farm income. In the future, as technology advances, it will be possible to prevent genetic diseases through genetic engineering, and to greatly contribute to extending the life of humans through interspecies transplantation using genetically modified animals. Richard L. Like Gardner, those who support human cloning argue that human cloning is merely the creation of genetically identical individuals, which will not lead to the creation of different personalities, and that concerns about the spread of human cloning due to technological inefficiency are unfounded. They argue that genetic engineering can improve the quality of life of individuals, which is a personal right, and that it does not pose significant ethical or legal problems, and therefore should be permitted. However, these positions focus only on the positive aspects of genetic engineering and overlook the negative aspects. Genetic engineering itself has already brought about great benefits, but when this technology is applied to humans, it requires further serious consideration.
Now let’s look at the position against human cloning. Genetic engineering technology targeting humans poses many ethical and social dilemmas. There are many subcategories, such as nuclear replacement and genetic manipulation technology, but since it is impossible to cover them all, we will focus on one of them, genetic testing. Let’s look at the future that the development of genetic testing technology will bring, based on the predictions of Barta Maria Noprs and Justin Burley regarding insurance and employment. As society currently devotes considerable effort to the advancement of biotechnology, genetic research will ultimately enable inexpensive genetic testing that is accessible to the general public. In particular, advanced technologies such as DNA biochips will facilitate testing for hundreds of conditions at once, but personal genetic information is a form of personal data and could lead to genetic discrimination. When an individual wants to purchase insurance, insurance companies can reduce their losses by knowing the individual’s genetic information, which allows them to diagnose the likelihood of future illnesses and decide whether to approve the insurance application or charge additional fees. However, individuals may be required to pay additional fees compared to others due to their genetic makeup. Of course, this may be perfectly justified from an economic perspective, but for individuals, it is simply another form of discrimination. The same applies to employment. Genetic diseases that only manifest themselves under specific conditions (such as a dusty environment) can enable employers to prevent the hiring of unqualified employees, thereby preventing economic losses such as a deterioration in the working environment. This can increase corporate profits by placing individuals more efficiently in relation to promotion opportunities and job duties, but conversely, individuals may be deprived of many opportunities due to genetic factors regardless of their efforts. Although this may be a form of discrimination for individuals, from the company’s perspective, it is a factor that can contribute to profits, and from the perspective of power relations, the company is usually in the position of power, so it can be assumed that genetic testing will gradually become more common. Of course, manipulation technology will also advance along with genetic testing technology, so the situation may change if people pay additional fees for manipulation, but biotechnology may not benefit poor people due to cost issues, resulting in discrimination similar to that described above and ultimately contributing to the polarization of wealth. Even if manipulation technology becomes cheaper and contributes to the elimination of polarization, there are still problems. This is related to the core of the first dilemma: genetic testing and manipulation technology targeting humans can spread the perception of classifying specific genetic characteristics as “disabilities” or “non-disabilities,” which could influence people’s thinking in the same way that eugenics was practiced by the Nazis in the past. Just as people undergo plastic surgery to conform to typical beauty standards, more people may seek genetic modification to obtain better genes, which could reduce genetic diversity and cause new problems such as harmful mutations and DNA loss. Genetic testing could also be the first step toward human cloning, as it allows people to identify traits they wish to change and then modify them through cloning and genetic engineering.
The second dilemma is related to human cloning. Kant’s maxim states, “Never treat another person as a means to an end,” and human cloning is one of the most representative technologies that treats other people as means to an end. Let us borrow Hillary Putnam’s argument. The intrinsic value of family includes the unpredictability and diversity of what kind of children will be born, but with genetic testing and human cloning, children can be modified to suit their parents’ tastes, or they can be regarded as part of their parents’ lifestyle rather than as individuals in their own right, becoming means to an end rather than positive family members who strive for each other. Furthermore, the process of human cloning reduces the gene pool, which could eventually lead to the extinction of humans, just as bananas are currently facing extinction. Regardless of whether embryos are considered to be life, the use of surrogate mothers in cloning is an example of the instrumentalization of humans and demonstrates the unethical nature of human cloning. In addition, the low success rate of nuclear replacement results in a large waste of human material, discarded embryos, suffering surrogate mothers, and the possibility of deformed children, which are very significant risks of human cloning. Citing Alan Coleman’s risk-benefit ratio, children born through cloning may have problems such as DNA mutations and rapid aging that adult nuclei have, which could cause unnecessary suffering to living beings. Ultimately, genetic engineering targeting humans, including human cloning, could create a very negative social atmosphere, and the technology itself could impose many sacrifices, resulting in losses that outweigh the benefits.
I would like to say this: if you ask about the future of human cloning and genetic engineering technology, look at the history of the past. The reason we learn history is because history repeats itself, and past examples help us solve future events. Ammonia synthesis using nitrogen in the air is a good example of the future of human cloning. First developed by Fritz Haber and commercialized by Carl Bosch and his colleagues, ammonia synthesis technology became a source of fertilizer, lifting countless people out of poverty and starvation. However, ammonia could also be used to make bombs, and ironically, it ended up taking countless lives. In addition, Carl Bosch’s company, BASF, cooperated with the German state and, furthermore, with Hitler and the Nazis in order to ensure the company’s survival, playing an active role as a German defense contractor in World War I and World War II and contributing to the loss of countless young lives in Europe. The important point here is that Fritz Haber was driven by a desire for fame, while Carl Bosch was driven by money and the growth of his company, which led them to develop ammonia. In this sense, genetic engineering on humans is in a very similar position to ammonia synthesis technology. Technologies such as organ transplants and nuclear replacement can overcome the limitations of existing medical technology and the human body. However, the potential problems, such as the devaluation of human life and the collapse of the ideal family, are equal to the benefits of commercializing this technology. Genetic engineering technology targeting humans could become a huge industry when commercialized, so just as ammonia synthesis technology was misused for economic and ideological interests, such as the survival of a company and victory in war, genetic engineering technology targeting humans, such as human cloning, is highly likely to be misused.
In conclusion, without more in-depth consideration of the development of genetic engineering technology, human cloning is highly likely to occur. This is because nuclear replacement and genetic recombination technologies are very attractive in themselves, and when applied to humans, they can attract even more capital, which is enough to tempt people. However, genetic engineering is a very attractive field, so its development cannot be stopped simply because human cloning is frightening. Therefore, genetic engineering technology should be prevented from being developed in areas related to humans through international treaties and agreements, as well as through stricter regulations and continuous monitoring of gene-related industries, and public awareness of these issues should be raised. By doing so, human cloning can be prevented to a certain extent. Although genetic engineering technology related to humans can bring many benefits, it must be stopped because it can lead to very negative outcomes. Just as the development of technologies such as nuclear weapons does not necessarily bring happiness, if genetic engineering targeting humans is not developed, humanity will be able to live happier lives.
