In this blog post, we consider the ethical issues raised by the advancement of human cloning technology, particularly the criteria for dignity.
On July 5, 1996, Dolly was born. Dolly was the first living being born through somatic cell cloning, a technology that does not require fertilization of sperm and egg. The technology used here is nuclear transfer technology, which involves inserting the nucleus of a somatic cell into an egg from which the nucleus has been removed to create an organism that is genetically identical to the original organism. Existing cloning technology was limited to separating embryos to create twins, but now, tremendous scientific and technological advances have been made to create organisms that are identical to a single mature organism. Since the birth of Dolly the cloned sheep, many species, including mice, pigs, and dogs, have been successfully cloned, and concerns and expectations about the application of cloning technology to humans have begun to stir, leading to ongoing controversy. I believe that human cloning should be allowed under appropriate restrictions. In this essay, I will explain the reasons why cloning should be allowed, refute the arguments against cloning based on human dignity, and explain what I think the criteria for allowing cloning should be.
I believe that cloning should be allowed because it can bring great medical and biological benefits to humanity. By modifying the genes of genetically identical individuals and comparing them with a control group, we can advance the field of genetics. Genetic engineering is ultimately the engineering application of genetics, so advances in genetics can lead to advances in genetic engineering. For example, genetic diseases can be treated using RNAi technology, in which specific RNA binds to mRNA and inhibits protein synthesis, demonstrating how advances in genetics can have a major impact on genetic engineering.
In addition, cloning can also be used to save human lives. Organ transplantation is a technology that restores the function of damaged human organs through transplantation, but there is a major obstacle called immune rejection. When an organ from outside the body is introduced, the human immune system distinguishes whether it originated from the body or not, and if it is not, it attacks it. If genetically identical organs can be created, immune rejection will not occur, and the quality of life of patients will be greatly improved. Currently, there is a severe shortage of organs for transplantation, but human cloning will enable the creation of cloned organs, which can be used for customized organ transplants without immune rejection.
It will also have enormous benefits for the development of new drugs. In the United States, new drugs are approved after undergoing drug development, animal testing, and clinical trials. Animal testing is not completely reliable, as 92% of drugs fail to pass clinical trials, demonstrating the significant differences between humans and animals. Clinical trials have the disadvantage of causing serious side effects in test subjects and the possibility that drugs that are effective in animals may not be effective in humans. However, cloned human experiments can eliminate these problems because they are performed on humans. Cloned human experiments can provide more accurate data and reduce the time spent developing ineffective drugs. As such, cloned humans are extremely important for the advancement of human medicine and biology, and cloning technology should be permitted.
The biggest reason for opposition is Kant’s humanity formula. According to Kant, “Whether we are dealing with ourselves or with another, we must never treat human beings as mere means to an end, but always as ends in themselves.” Kant believed that human beings are dignified and irreplaceable because they are beings that give value to things. Opponents argue that human cloning should not be allowed because cloned human life is treated merely as a means to an end. The advancement of biology and medicine and the benefit to humanity as grounds for cloning seem convincing, but in fact, the criteria are very vague. Let’s look at Kant’s “means” in terms of treatment and research. Cloned humans created for treatment and research can be thought of as being created for the purpose of experimentation and treated as mere tools. However, let us consider the genetic revolution and John Harris’s argument on bioethics. He pointed out the ambiguity of the word “solely.” According to John Harris’s example, a person receiving a blood transfusion uses blood merely as a means to an end. If so, does this violate Kant’s principle? Kant’s principle does not provide clear answers to various other medical and biological issues. Kant’s principle of dignity is open to interpretation depending on the person, and it cannot be used as a basis for arguing that cloning technology should not be used. Kant’s human dignity alone cannot determine whether cloning is right or wrong.
Instead, I would like to propose Singer’s concept of sentience as a criterion for cloning. According to Singer, if an entity has the ability to feel pain and pleasure, that is, sentience, then it is worthy of equal consideration. Singer argues that animals should be respected based on their ability to feel pain, not their intelligence, and includes animals in moral consideration. However, he argues that differences between humans and animals give rise to different rights. Pain is also the reason why we reject not only human cloning experiments but also animal experiments. Therefore, I believe that if we establish standards regarding pain, we can also clarify the standards for cloning. When conducting experiments or research based on Singer’s ideas, it is necessary to include the condition that the subjects must be incapable of feeling pleasure or pain. According to Singer, beings incapable of feeling pleasure or pain do not have equal value. I believe that this will alleviate the public’s discomfort regarding the pain of experimental subjects.
In the case of experiments or research, ethical issues regarding human cloning have always been raised. This is because cloned humans are also human beings and suffer pain, and there is opposition to them being used as mere experimental subjects rather than as human beings. However, according to Singer, cloned humans who are incapable of feeling pleasure or pain do not have the same moral status as humans. They do not even have the same moral status as animals that feel pain. To give a concrete example, on one side, there are humans who are incapable of feeling pleasure or pain, and on the other side, there are ordinary laboratory rats that feel all kinds of pain. Can we say that experimenting on these humans is more unethical than experimenting on laboratory rats?
The question of whether humans incapable of feeling pleasure or pain can actually exist can be answered by the case of a 10-year-old child who lived in Pakistan. This child had a genetic mutation that prevented him from feeling pain due to a mutation in the gene that encodes pain receptors. In summary, although the technology to do this has not yet been developed, it is possible to create humans who cannot feel pain through genetic modification, as this genetic disorder was caused by a specific mutation.
The question may arise as to whether humans who cannot feel pain due to an accident can be used as test subjects. However, they are in a different position from cloned humans created for experimentation. The difference lies in whether or not they have given their consent. In medicine, the consent of the patient or guardian is very important. For example, according to Article 4, Section 22 of the Organ Transplant Act, organ donation from a brain-dead person is only possible with the consent of the family, and for minors under the age of 16, the organs can only be removed with the consent of the parents. Unless a person who is unable to feel pain due to an accident has signed a consent form for experimentation during their lifetime, it cannot be considered that they have given their consent. However, in the case of cloned humans, the fact that they were born for experimental purposes can be considered tacit consent on the part of the embryo provider.
In conclusion, I believe that human cloning should be permitted under appropriate restrictions. The criteria for this are that cloning for experimental or research purposes must eliminate the ability to feel pleasure, and that cloning for birth must maintain the ability to feel pleasure. The development of human genetic engineering through cloning technology will bring enormous benefits, such as the treatment of genetic diseases, the acceleration of new drug development, and the creation of human clones without immune rejection. Consider that it is not ethically wrong to conduct experiments on humans who have had their capacity for pleasure and pain removed, as opposed to conducting experiments on laboratory animals that feel all pain. We should not be blinded by the word “human” in human cloning, but rather consider that technological advances made under appropriate restrictions can greatly benefit humanity.
