In this blog post, we examine from various perspectives whether human cloning represents a remarkable advancement in biotechnology or a dangerous choice that crosses the boundaries of ethics and life.
“If we can do it, does that mean we should?” In the rapidly developing and evolving world of biotechnology, things that were unimaginable just a decade ago are now becoming possible. Genetic cloning is one of the prime examples. Dolly, the cloned sheep born through scientific means in 1997, sparked significant controversy. As the first perfectly cloned animal, Dolly generated both anticipation and concern, and this event ignited a debate over whether human cloning might be possible beyond animal cloning. Human cloning is a sensitive issue involving human life and, as such, entails numerous problems. Personally, I oppose human cloning. Considering the risks of experimentation and ethical concerns, I believe the harms of human cloning outweigh the benefits. In this essay, I will first examine the concept and feasibility of human cloning, then compare the pro and con arguments to review the key points of the debate.
First, we need to define what human cloning is. While movies and novels often depict human cloning as creating individuals who are physically and mentally identical to the original, this is impossible with current technological capabilities. Actual human cloning involves creating genetically identical humans, and the cloned organism does not possess the original person’s thoughts or memories. To be precise, human cloning refers to “human genetic cloning.” The press and media have presented horrific scenarios, such as cloning the dead to bring them back to life or mass-producing clones to use them as slaves and commodify humans, which has led the public to mistakenly believe that human cloning is synonymous with creating “cloned humans.” In reality, human cloning technology involves extracting the nucleus from a specific person’s somatic cell, removing the nucleus from an egg cell, inserting the somatic cell nucleus into the egg, and then cultivating it into a cloned embryo.
Proponents of human cloning emphasize that it can help patients with incurable diseases and infertile couples. For example, if a couple carrying recessive genes for a fatal disease conceives a child naturally, there is a high probability that the child will inherit the disease; however, through cloning, they can have a child who carries only one parent’s genes. Furthermore, even couples suffering from absolute infertility due to anovulation or azoospermia can have a child carrying their own genes through somatic cell nuclear transfer.
The arguments of the opposing side primarily stem from the view that human cloning is unethical. The first reason is that, due to the technical limitations of human cloning, there is a possibility that innocent lives will be sacrificed before success is achieved. Although there are no official cases of human cloning, considering the low success rate of animal cloning, the probability of success for human cloning is also low. In the case of Dolly the cloned sheep, 276 failed attempts—including stillbirths and birth defects—occurred before a successful clone was produced. Since sheep have a reproductive capacity four times that of humans, calculations suggest that approximately 1,000 fertilizations would be required to produce a single cloned human. Even if a fertilized egg is created and implantation occurs, there is a high probability that the majority of them—out of 100—will result in miscarriage. Furthermore, even cloned babies that are born are expected to suffer from serious complications such as heart wall defects, spinal defects, hydrocephalus, partial lung hypoplasia, and immune deficiency, eventually leading to death. There is significant doubt as to whether there is a valid reason to pursue human cloning at the cost of such immense sacrifice.
Even if successful, there are limits to the lifespan of a cloned organism. Due to genetic aging, cloned organisms face a risk of premature death. In fact, Dolly the cloned sheep lived for six years before dying, which is shorter than the average lifespan of a sheep, which is 12 years.
Since the sheep that provided Dolly’s genetic material was six years old, Dolly inherited already aged genes. This phenomenon occurs due to a DNA structure called telomeres, which determine the number of cell divisions. When genes are cloned, telomeres are also cloned, so even a newborn organism already has a reduced genetic lifespan. Dolly also exhibited symptoms typical of aged sheep, such as arthritis and progressive lung disease. Based on this, Time magazine reported, “What scientists realized after Dolly is that cloning is an imperfect process.”
Second, cloned humans could disrupt social order. Humans inherit genes from their parents and become members of a family as their children. However, this concept does not apply to cloned humans. From a biological perspective, a cloned human is merely an identical twin born later than the original human. From a social perspective, the situation becomes even more complex. A cloned human, created from the original’s genes, faces confusion over whether to call the original a parent or a brother or sister. Such fundamental issues of identity for cloned humans cause confusion and will negatively impact the concept of the family, the basic unit of society. Ultimately, if a technology has the potential to disrupt social order, human cloning must be banned.
The strongest voices opposing human cloning come from religious groups, particularly Christianity. Unlike the arguments against cloning mentioned earlier, Christians oppose it for religious reasons. Conservative Christians argue that human cloning is a challenge to God and an act that destroys the order of creation. In Christianity, the “order of creation” refers to the process in which a man and a woman fall in love, conceive a child through sexual union, and that child grows up in the love of its parents, establishes its identity, and carries on the human race and society. In contrast, human cloning results in children being born without sexual union and potentially having multiple parents, thereby undermining the traditional family system. From a Christian perspective, the commodification or instrumentalization of humans through cloning is seen as a violation of God’s law.
As history has shown, the advancement of science and technology does not always proceed according to human intentions. Science is like a double-edged sword. Human cloning is akin to Pandora’s box, holding diverse possibilities: while it can grant children to infertile couples and prevent disabilities, it also carries the risk of commodifying humans and causing them to lose their dignity. Therefore, when dealing with human cloning, we must exercise ethical and moral wisdom to ensure it does not harm humanity. As stated earlier, I oppose human cloning. Although human cloning has not yet been technically realized, we must remain vigilant because many countries have not banned research in this area. Only through strong opposition can we prevent the sacrifice of innocent lives in the name of research.
