In this blog post, we will examine whether human cloning technology is a legitimate choice for scientific progress from the perspective of bioethics.
While advances in modern biomedical science have brought us numerous benefits, such as extending human life and improving quality of life, they also raise new issues—such as genetic engineering—that we have never faced before. This necessitates the search for various solutions on ethical, legal, and social levels, and the academic discipline that studies these issues is called bioethics. The field of bioethics emerged primarily in the United States during the 1970s. American scholar Porter defined bioethics as a new discipline that integrates biological knowledge with the human value system.
Interest in bioethics began with cell cloning, progressed through reptile cloning, and expanded significantly following the world’s first successful mammal cloning in 1997. This is because the success of mammalian cloning makes it easy to extrapolate that applying this technology to humans could make human cloning possible. Since a human being created in this way differs greatly from the natural process of human birth—involving the intentional creation of a specific human for a particular purpose—there is a fundamental aversion to human cloning. Furthermore, questions arise as to whether a human cloned through genetic engineering is truly the same as a human. Of course, they would be genetically identical, but as we can see with identical twins, they are perceived as distinct human beings with different personalities.
Let’s take a look at the methods used to create genetically engineered human clones. Generally, human cloning is carried out using “somatic cell nuclear transfer” technology. This method involves removing the nucleus from a spare egg cell and implanting the nucleus from the target somatic cell to induce development. An embryo created in this way is called a “somatic cell-cloned embryo,” and if this embryo is implanted into a surrogate mother’s uterus, a fetus can develop. This method means that a living being can be born without the union of sperm and egg, and cloning is equivalent to creating a genetically identical human.
The act of creating cloned humans using genetic engineering technology disrupts the order of human civilization. The human order regarding the birth of life, which has been maintained for thousands of years, can be described as the union of a man and a woman to give birth to children and form families, and the formation of human society through the collective of such families. However, human cloning technology is an act that shakes the very foundation of this most basic human order and is therefore an unacceptable technology.
In addition to the general reasons for opposing human cloning mentioned above, there are several scientific and ethical grounds for opposing human cloning technology. First, from a scientific perspective, human cloning is difficult to achieve successfully and poses the problem of premature aging. In the case of mammalian cloning, which is similar to human cloning, the success rate is only 5% or less. Cloned animals are often born with deformities, particularly in the heart or brain. If human cloning technology were to be applied, ethical questions could arise regarding who would bear responsibility if a baby with deformities were born. Additionally, there is the issue of premature aging. Research has shown that, due to the nature of the method involving the transplantation of an adult cell nucleus, cloned individuals age faster than non-cloned individuals.
However, in response to these scientific objections, some people argue that “if a method to completely resolve the current risks of human cloning is scientifically developed, we should support human cloning.” This can be convincingly countered using the ethical grounds for opposing human cloning.
In addition to scientific grounds, the ethical grounds I will present provide an opportunity to reconsider the validity of human cloning. Children cloned through human cloning, who lack natural parents, undermine the family—the fundamental structure and foundation of society. Due to the nature of human cloning technology, which utilizes nuclear transfer, cloned humans cannot be attributed to specific parents. This is because the process requires a person to provide the egg, a person to provide the somatic cell, and a person to carry the fertilized egg to term. The ambiguity in the concept of family created in this way affects the basic structure of society and is therefore ethically untenable.
Furthermore, human cloning poses a major ethical problem in that it “objectifies” human beings. Every human being born naturally through the union of parents possesses fundamental human rights and dignity. However, cloned humans, born for a specific purpose, severely violate the principle of human dignity that states, “Treat human beings as ends in themselves, not as means.” If naturally born humans and artificially cloned humans are treated as distinct categories, there is a high likelihood of social discrimination. Such a dichotomy risks destroying the unity of humanity and undermining the moral foundation of humanity through unjust discrimination. One might argue that there is no reason to discriminate against cloned humans, as there is only a minor difference in their birth process compared to naturally born humans. However, since society is composed of diverse individuals, there is a very high probability that discrimination against cloned humans will arise due to each person’s firm values or religious beliefs.
Of course, those in favor of human cloning also present various arguments. The two main reasons for supporting it are the potential to cure diseases or physical disabilities that cannot be treated by modern medicine, and the resolution of infertility issues. What I am arguing in this article is opposition to the cloning of human “individuals.” I have opposed the artificial creation of new human individuals for the purpose of treating specific humans on social, scientific, and ethical grounds. However, creating new organs for medical treatment—which involves producing specific organs rather than creating an entire individual using adult stem cell technology or induced pluripotent stem cell technology—can serve as a counterargument to the first reason. Furthermore, I believe that solving infertility issues through human cloning is impossible. The birth of a child results from the equal mixing of the parents’ genes, and the child inherits characteristics from both parents. However, pregnancy through human cloning does not result in the birth of a child with a mix of two people’s genes but rather in the creation of a cloned individual; therefore, I believe it is impossible because the concept of a “child” becomes significantly diluted.
Thus, it is clear that there are sufficient grounds for opposition to human cloning technology, including reasons based on an instinctive aversion, scientific objections, and ethical concerns. Furthermore, I have refuted the two main arguments in favor of human cloning. In doing so, I have expressed support for the development of adult stem cell technology and induced pluripotent stem cell technology for therapeutic purposes, as opposed to the cloning of human “individuals.” No matter how great the potential benefits of a particular research may be, research that undermines human dignity cannot be justified from the perspective of bioethics. A rigorous bioethical perspective must be applied to all new research, and since human “individual” cloning technology is also unjustifiable from a bioethical standpoint, it must be strictly prohibited to protect human dignity.
