In this blog post, we examine whether the aversion and fear surrounding human cloning are legitimate reasons for opposition based on scientific evidence.
When the Dolly the sheep cloning experiment was unveiled to the world on February 24, 1997, many scientists and members of the public became interested in somatic cell cloning. Although cloning technologies have become widely known to the public over time, there are still people who harbor an inexplicable aversion and fear toward human cloning. The renowned biologist Leon Kass once stated, “The revulsion against cloning is the only voice left to cry out in defense of the core of our humanity.” In this way, some people still oppose human cloning, calling it repugnant. But is this aversion truly a convincing enough reason for anyone to oppose human cloning? I would like to discuss whether the aversion people feel toward human cloning can objectively justify rejecting it.
Is it possible to create a cloned human with the same genes as me using somatic cell cloning technology? Let’s try to articulate the thoughts of those who oppose human cloning on the grounds of disgust. Perhaps the phrase “children created to satisfy desires”—a term used by the scientists in this book to describe children created through somatic cell cloning—is the most fitting. Just like a scene from the movie *The Island*, which depicts cloned humans created for organ transplants, this involves using cloning technology to treat genetically identical clones as disposable commodities. Imagining a situation where human dignity is reduced to rock bottom, people would likely shudder with revulsion and fear. However, despite such imaginings, a review of the current state of somatic cell cloning research reveals that this is a highly unrealistic scenario. Human cloning, which combines somatic cell cloning technology with genetic engineering, may be theoretically possible, but for now, it remains a dream beyond our reach. Even if it becomes possible in the future, human phenotype expression is influenced not only by genes but also by various factors such as life experiences. Therefore, the idea that a cloned human can be created through genetic replication alone is a gross exaggeration. Ultimately, the aversion and fear people have harbored toward human cloning stem from assumptions lacking scientific basis. Many stories and discussions based on these unproven premises cloud people’s judgment, hindering their ability to accurately assess the current state, prospects, limitations, and solutions regarding human cloning technology. If discussions about the negative aspects of human cloning are conducted without objective evidence and judgment, this will only lead to preconceptions and biases regarding cloning technology. Furthermore, it will result in the positive aspects of human cloning being overlooked as well.
Another mistake often made by those opposed to human cloning is obscuring the issue by presenting emotionally driven arguments as if they were objective facts. In fact, the book’s main text takes issue with viewing human cloning solely through the lens of utility, citing the commodification of humans and the loss of human dignity as reasons to oppose it. For example, Chapter 5 opposes asexually reproduced humans by citing the erosion of individual uniqueness and the bond between parents and children. However, underlying this argument is the emotion of public disappointment and revulsion that humanity has cultivated over many years. Furthermore, Chapter 3 fails to explain the reasons behind the fundamental revulsion felt toward human cloning. Nevertheless, it argues that this revulsion should be accepted as an instinctive warning, much like the revulsion toward incest. Ultimately, it defines human cloning as a violation of human nature and a departure from natural human methods.
Those who oppose human cloning are conducting their arguments by assigning subjective values to nature and human nature. This approach fails to provide an objective and scientific explanation for the revulsion and instinctive opposition that human cloning evokes. Ultimately, such an emotionally charged discussion lacks logical persuasiveness and validity.
You might think, while reading this essay, that I am opposing the very act of opposing human cloning. However, this essay does not aim to express my personal opinion on human cloning, but rather to discuss the conditions and mindset required for expressing an opinion. So, what conditions must a valid argument against human cloning meet? We must view the technology of human cloning scientifically and realistically. We must first make a dispassionate assessment of the extent to which genetic manipulation and human cloning are technically and realistically feasible, establish appropriate limits, and then proceed with the discussion. Furthermore, the debate over human cloning fundamentally concerns the legitimacy of a technology that does not yet exist. Consequently, more than in other debates, the discussion may naturally unfold based on the images and notions deeply rooted in our minds. In this process, we must question whether we are inadvertently discussing unrealistic possibilities as if they were feasible. Within this established framework, we must examine various possibilities and objectively assess the problems that could arise from a few scenarios with realistic potential. Furthermore, we must first focus our efforts on developing solutions and response strategies, as well as reflecting on the moral issues that these feasible possibilities might raise.
